Gravity, the weakest force in the multiverse

[Narfle]

Im speaking relatively naturally.

The whole physics debate in the other thread (as petty and bickery as it may be) made me feel like people might enjoy this debate.

First of all, in case you disagree, go find a magnet and get it to pick up a needle. That magnet just wtfpwnd the entire planets gravitational pull.

And yes, i mean the weakest force we know of, naturally, it would be sorta silly to debate things we have no ****ing clue about.

There is a BBC Horizon docu about it titled "Whats wrong with Gravity?" (great series btw, i also reccomend their episode Human 2.0) which you can go watch in case this interests you and you want to hear what the expoirts say about it.

I wont link you because of the foram rools, but its probably on any of the TV streaming sites you pirates use daily, at least it was on STC when i first saw it.

Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity.

Lets see what you nutjobs turn this thread into.

EDIT: Yes i realize i should have said "Universe" in the title, not "Multiverse". I guess im too fond of the word.

[Reonhato]

it all depends on how you compare. yes the gravity force here on earth is fairly weak but compare gravity in a black hole and your not going to find anything stronger

[Narfle]

Its beginning, my lols is beginning.

[Tyrando]

so why is it our gravity is the "spill" and not theirs/the other universe?

[RogerDodger]

I thought this was common knowledge

[crazysheep]

Gravity is acknowledged as the weakest force in the universe, true.

But why invoke a multiverse theory?

PS: I think there are some documentaries available for streaming from the BBC website directly. Not sure if that breaks the forum rules or not though.

PPS: Just checked the BBC UK website and they only have "highlights" of the show.

[alliednoob]

multiverse, LOL

[ldelusionl]

...

Gravitrons are composed of closed strings, that pass freeley between different Branes and dimensions, thus being dissipated.

Most other strings are fixed to Branes, so their force carriers seem stronger.

That is all.


Or unless you hate unification and have a hardon for Einstein, Gravity is caused by the geometric indentations caused by mass in space-time. But this interpretation is not nearly as popular as String Theory and it's derivations.


Multiverse has NOTHING to do it with it.

[Well_Shebber]

I think I'll tryyyy defyyyying graaaaavity

[Pyrate]

there is no discussion, Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, its not up for debate, there is no yes no or maybe, out of the 4 forces, its the weakest, its fact.

[Sneaky_NEDM]

a fun thing to think is that while humans have measured the power of gravity, there is no solid indication (I will not use proof as it is a non scientific term) of WHAT it really is. theaory has it in two forms as mentioned above. what I like to think is just how many things have we "Measured" and are just aware of it's effects but not WHAT it really is.

[Pyrate]

a fun thing to think is that while humans have measured the power of gravity, there is no solid indication (I will not use proof as it is a non scientific term) of WHAT it really is. theaory has it in two forms as mentioned above. what I like to think is just how many things have we "Measured" and are just aware of it's effects but not WHAT it really is.

we know exactly what gravity is, its the attraction created by an entity with mass, what we dont know is exactly how it happens.

[Reonhato]

i still think gravity is the strongest, while the others may be stonger in general the potential power of gravity is virtually unlimited

[RAMON17739]

i still think gravity is the strongest, while the others may be stonger in general the potential power of gravity is virtually unlimited
Wrong. gravity is the weakest but has the greatest RANGE.

And the "spill" that OT was talking about is graviton "leaking" into/out of our universe. Theoretical Physics is a very interesting field; multiverse, universes w/ different dimensions than ours.

[Reonhato]

Wrong. gravity is the weakest but has the greatest RANGE.

And the "spill" that OT was talking about is graviton "leaking" into/out of our universe. Theoretical Physics is a very interesting field; multiverse, universes w/ different dimensions than ours.

if theoretically we created an object with the density of a black hole and the size of our entire galaxy the gravitational force would be unimaginable. in the crazy world of science you may call this range but i say its stronger

[crazysheep]

*sigh* Reon you don't know what you're talking about are you?

Strength and range are different concepts. The strength of a force is compared over the same range [ie if you wanted to compare the strength of gravitational force against electromagnetic forces you would need to compare the effects of each force over the same distances.]
On the other hand the range of a force is the distance over which the force acts and is still detectable.

And Ramon was referring to the range of action of gravity, which acts from one end of the universe on objects on the other end. That is what he means by greatest range.

[Reonhato]

*sigh* Reon you don't know what you're talking about are you?

Strength and range are different concepts. The strength of a force is compared over the same range [ie if you wanted to compare the strength of gravitational force against electromagnetic forces you would need to compare the effects of each force over the same distances.]
On the other hand the range of a force is the distance over which the force acts and is still detectable.

And Ramon was referring to the range of action of gravity, which acts from one end of the universe on objects on the other end. That is what he means by greatest range.

thats gay, when you ask whats stronger an ant or an elephant? the correct answer is elephant. it isnt ant coz if it was the size of an elephant it would be stronger. science is gay


it wouldnt be the internet without
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/the-force-star-wars-carrie-fischer-princess-leia-jedi-demotivational-poster-1262164989.jpg


problem solved

[Darxio]

Gravity is pretty damn strong if you fall off a building.

[crazysheep]

thats gay, when you ask whats stronger an ant or an elephant? the correct answer is elephant. it isnt ant coz if it was the size of an elephant it would be stronger. science is gay
K suit yourself. The elephant is strong because it can lift heavy stuff, whereas the ant is strong because the stuff it lifts is proportionately heavier than itself. And scaled up, the ant is stronger than the elephant.. so the contradiction here is in terms of relative strength.

[RogerDodger]

Debate it all you want, gravity IS the weakest force in the universe.

as for multiverse... I don't want to bother thinking about that.

[Matemeo]

What a complete waste of space this thread is. Oh wait. I'm in Off Topic. Never mind carry on.

[RAMON17739]

if theoretically we created an object with the density of a black hole and the size of our entire galaxy the gravitational force would be unimaginable. in the crazy world of science you may call this range but i say its stronger

So lets say I theoretically turn this black hole-galazy of yours into a black h ole-galaxy of protons. If said object would be put in the center of the universe it would absolutely have a more pronounced effect on the cosmos because the strength of electromagnetism is roughly 10^37 times greater than gravity. it may even possibly rip galaxies apart, lightyears away

[Narfle]

What a complete waste of space this thread is. Oh wait. I'm in Off Topic. Never mind carry on.

Just because you dont find the merger of philosophy and physics interesting doesnt mean others also dont. This is a quite worthwhile concept being debated, and i do believe we will see more theories related to the concept of adjacent universes in the future.

What i really wanna see is the universe that the gravity is spilling from.

EDIT: Its also nice to see more new faces in the OT showing.

[RAMON17739]

What i really wanna see is the universe that the gravity is spilling from.

I wanna see if their really are "universes w/ different dimensions" (ex a 2D universe or a 10D unvierse) :eek:

[Narfle]

Well theres a lot of theories regarding OUR universe having 10+ dimensions.

Even though Hawkings fought pretty fiercly against the 10th mathematical dimension (yes thats what its called, or at least what it was called when i studied the topic), which was the dimension that made mass, well mass.

[Qwernakus]

http://mrbarlow.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/black_hole.jpg

Black hole wants to have a word with you.

[RAMON17739]

I do know that their are theories on our universe having 11 dimensions(refering to string theory) and such; but I am curious as to where this so called "leaking of gravitons" go and if their are other universes out there that have a different set of laws of physics and different dimensions.

[Narfle]

It is very interesting yes, honestly i dont believe we will get an answer before the singularity.

And by that, i mean that an SI-SAI will give us the answer eventually (which will be a lot of time in its standards and a tiny amount in our standards). And no, it wont be 42.

[Nolifer]

Gravity is weakening, but couldn't that be due to the universe constantly expanding?
When the universe grows bigger, the gravity's force gets spread out and thus it weakens. This explains why gravity was strong during the early stages of the universe, I guess.

I'm not saying this is the answer, cause I honestly don't have any prefered theory myself. I find the thought of an infinite number of universes and more than 3 dimensions compelling.

Anyhow, could someone enlighten me on the matter?

[RAMON17739]

Gravity is weakening, but couldn't that be due to the universe constantly expanding?
When the universe grows bigger, the gravity's force gets spread out and thus it weakens. This explains why gravity was strong during the early stages of the universe, I guess.

I'm not saying this is the answer, cause I honestly don't have any prefered theory myself. I find the thought of an infinite number of universes and more than 3 dimensions compelling.

Anyhow, could someone enlighten me on the matter?

First thing first. Our Universe has 4dimensions. 3 space dimensions plus a time dimension. Read about relativity to know more about that matter.

[Targuil]

http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/215.gif

[Narfle]

that is one creepy gif

[Cheeseburger]

Gravity is the strongest force in the current universe. It has to fight against alot of other forces to still have a large amount of force left over. In respect to what is left over, yes, it is weak, but as to it's true strength, few can compare.

[RAMON17739]

Gravity is the strongest force in the current universe. It has to fight against alot of other forces to still have a large amount of force left over. In respect to what is left over, yes, it is weak, but as to it's true strength, few can compare.
Your words are misleading. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces but it is the most dominant.

[Forfeit]

Multiverse, what is this, a comic book? Earth 2 Forfeit is confused.


First of all, in case you disagree, go find a magnet and get it to pick up a needle. That magnet just wtfpwnd the entire planets gravitational pull.

Bad example. The gravity exerted on the needle is not just "the planets gravitational pull", it's the gravitational pull between the planet and the needle. Gravity requires 2 objects. A refrigerator magnet exerts a greater force on a needle than the earth's gravity does, but would that same magnet exert a greater force on say, a Boeing 747 than the earth's gravity?

[OTRawrior]

For all you nay-sayers, it is accepted that gravity IS the weakest of the four fundamental forces of the universe, out of Gravity, Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction and Electromagnetism.

Correct me if I am wrong but the reason that gravity is such a dominant force is because it has no rest mass, therefore it can travel at an infinite speed, unlike objects that do have mass that cannot reach the speed of light. (E=mc^2)

What I wonder is how another univere's gravity is 'true'. What makes it 'truer' than our own?

[ldelusionl]

For all you nay-sayers, it is accepted that gravity IS the weakest of the four fundamental forces of the universe, out of Gravity, Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction and Electromagnetism.

Correct me if I am wrong but the reason that gravity is such a dominant force is because it has no rest mass, therefore it can travel at an infinite speed, unlike objects that do have mass that cannot reach the speed of light. (E=mc^2)

What I wonder is how another univere's gravity is 'true'. What makes it 'truer' than our own?

Gravity is NOT instantaneous and infinite, contrary to Newtons perceptions..

kids, I already gave you the widely accepted explanation... Anything else is people bringing their crackpot weird theories they have had and think they are worth something.

[Forfeit]

I'm not doubting that gravity is the weakest force, that's pretty much agreed upon by scholars. I'm just saying his example was a bad one, as gravity relies on a relation between two objects.

[Narfle]

I'm not doubting that gravity is the weakest force, that's pretty much agreed upon by scholars. I'm just saying his example was a bad one, as gravity relies on a relation between two objects.

We welcome petty nitpicking bickering also, dont worry.

EDIT: At any rate, this thread was about as to WHY its such a weak force.

[Fluffeh]

My head hurts.

[RetardDrool]

Sigh I regret not taking physics, I love this ****.

[sexdwarf]

If gravity is the weakest force...which is the strongest? (Disregarding Chuck Norris)

[moopydude]

K suit yourself. The elephant is strong because it can lift heavy stuff, whereas the ant is strong because the stuff it lifts is proportionately heavier than itself. And scaled up, the ant is stronger than the elephant.. so the contradiction here is in terms of relative strength.


No, http://www.ftexploring.com/think/superbugs_p2.html.

[TheDrNick]

If gravity is the weakest force...which is the strongest? (Disregarding Chuck Norris)

I believe it is the strong interaction (or strong nuclear force as I was taught). Its strength is much higher than gravitational force, but is range lies within the nucleus of an atom, whereas gravity is infinite.

What gravity actually is no one can say for sure. Einstein believed that gravity was in some way caused by spacetime curviture, as stated in his theory of general relativity. However his calculations completely fall apart when taking into cosideration black holes. The multiverse theory is an interesting one, and one I havent heard of before; it is just as convincing as other theories about spacetime and gravity I have heard of.

Also, to whoever said that this is a 4D universe, time is not a dimension. The human brain cannot comprehend a 4th dimension, however the closest we've come to is known as the Hypercube or Tesseract.

[RAMON17739]

Also, to whoever said that this is a 4D universe, time is not a dimension. The human brain cannot comprehend a 4th dimension, however the closest we've come to is known as the Hypercube or Tesseract.
Advice: Stop searching wikipedia. The reason I said 3+1 dimensions is that we had 3 spatial dimensions and time as the "4th" as the special theory of relativity points out.

Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases. :eek:

[Torment]

All this thread proves is Gravity needs to be buffed.

[crazysheep]

Gravity is NOT instantaneous and infinite, contrary to Newtons perceptions..

kids, I already gave you the widely accepted explanation... Anything else is people bringing their crackpot weird theories they have had and think they are worth something.
"Action at a distance" in Newton's words, I believe. The problem with that was with a finite speed of light, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, hence gravity could not be instantaneous.

However, crackpot theories can be true or can be widely accepted. Einstein's theories were thought to be crackpot before Eddington's measurements came along. What we need is a paradigm shift.


No, http://www.ftexploring.com/think/superbugs_p2.html.
It seems that it works both ways, no?

Back on track, if we take Einstein's spacetime curvature as an accepted reason for gravity, then gravity would be weak - a small ball curves spacetime less than a huge boulder.

[Llama]

A Bucket of +charge on the far side of the moon and a bucket of -charge on the far side of the earth would be enough to pull the two together in a matter of minuets

[TheDrNick]

Advice: Stop searching wikipedia. The reason I said 3+1 dimensions is that we had 3 spatial dimensions and time as the "4th" as the special theory of relativity points out.

Special relativity shows that time behaves surprisingly like the three spatial dimensions. The Lorenz equations show this. Length contracts as speed increases. Time expands as speed increases. :eek:

The way I view how dimensions work is clearly different to how you view how dimensions work. We live in a 3D, in spatial terms, universe, which is the mathmatical way of viewing dimensions. It is possible that time is a dimension, in which case we live in a 4D universe, although this is not a theory I support at the moment, which isn't to say its not correct.

Also, why do you assume I read wikipedia to find this out?

[OTBatman]

fat people disagree

[OTRobin]

so fat we neede d a string theorist to weigh her

[OTBatman]

sunflower seeds are pcool

[hexasemi]

I think the problem with this thread so far is that no one is supporting their claim with a source.

Anyway, here is a video I found that explains dimensions using geometry.

http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_E.htm

I'd like to point out that there are 9 videos in the series, and all of them are quite lengthy (hope you have some time). You might be able to skip the first video because it most likely won't introduce anything new that you don't already know.

[Kalevra2k9]

Gravity is just a concept, a measurable concept of a force acting. It's strenght is variable. That's why the gravity of the moon is lower (but still existent). And that of a black hole is so vast that even light is sucked in.

That the concept, or the measure exists doesn't mean that it's the weakest force. It may be "weak" on Earth, but it may as well be uberstrong on other planets (on which if we step foot on we'd be crushed mercilessly by the gravitational pull).

Punching someone with half your strenght or with full strenght is a major difference, but just because you can punch "weakly" you wont say you're the weakest force in the universe.

So in resume, gravity is measurable, so hypothetically it can increase or decrease limitlessly making it a HUGE force if controlled ;)

[Juular]

First of all, in case you disagree, go find a magnet and get it to pick up a needle. That magnet just wtfpwnd the entire planets gravitational pull.There's a difference between magnetic attraction and gravity. Any sort of vessel being sent into space has to reach a special speed and trajectory to escape earth's gravity (escape velocity); the escape velocity is almost exponentially greater for larger vessels.

Gravity's strength depends on the mass of the object. For instance, earth isn't a particularly massive planet, compared to some others out there; the sun's gravity, however, is enough to hold planets in its orbit which are billions of miles away.




Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity....wat? Gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime, which governs inertia and how inertial objects move.

[TheDrNick]

Gravity is just a concept, a measurable concept of a force acting. It's strenght is variable. That's why the gravity of the moon is lower (but still existent). And that of a black hole is so vast that even light is sucked in.

That the concept, or the measure exists doesn't mean that it's the weakest force. It may be "weak" on Earth, but it may as well be uberstrong on other planets (on which if we step foot on we'd be crushed mercilessly by the gravitational pull).

Punching someone with half your strenght or with full strenght is a major difference, but just because you can punch "weakly" you wont say you're the weakest force in the universe.

So in resume, gravity is measurable, so hypothetically it can increase or decrease limitlessly making it a HUGE force if controlled ;)

It is widely accepted within the scientific community that gravity is the weakest of the four fundemental forces. It is wrong to compare gravity to someone punching since the gravitational field of an object is dependent on its mass. Thats why the Earth has a stronger gravitational field than the moon and the Sun has a stronger gravitational field than the Earth. However, no object in the universe is strong enough to rip apart the quarks within an atom due to its gravitational pull, yet they can be kept together within a nucleus by the strong nuclear force, despite their minute size, which in someway goes to show how weak gravity is compared to the other forces.

[Kalevra2k9]

sure. You can say that of the 4 it is the weakest force, which is acceptable and possibly undebatable. I'm no physicist, nor chemist, nor astronomist. I just try to apply common sense and philosophic knowledge.
Still, as stated, if gravity is mass dependant, and such cannot rip apart the quarks within an atom, then what about being able to control, hypothetically, defying physical laws, gravital force, changing the gravital pull from a specific mass. What if, for example, you could somehow generate an extra gravitational pull into a specific object, making the pull enormous on a needle pin sized element. Wouldn't that significately alter the power of gravity?

Nuclear force is so powerful because it doesn't apply to range, but on short distance and force. Gravity is the widest spread force, but proportionately, ignoring the fact that it applies to such a wide campus, instead focusing gravital force on a short distance with full strenght, wouldn't it make it more powerful than the nuclear force?

What about black holes, what about that pull? It applies to a short range and sucks every particle in. Even a nuclear explosion.

[crazysheep]

I think the problem with this thread so far is that no one is supporting their claim with a source.

Anyway, here is a video I found that explains dimensions using geometry.

http://www.dimensions-math.org/Dim_reg_E.htm

I'd like to point out that there are 9 videos in the series, and all of them are quite lengthy (hope you have some time). You might be able to skip the first video because it most likely won't introduce anything new that you don't already know.
Is the original set of videos in French? Because I couldn't stand the narrator, he's too boring. And.. with decent high school knowledge you could skip one of the other videos as well, the first one on complex numbers, simply because you should already know most of what is displayed in that video.

And as for sources, here's the link to the relative strength of the 4 fundamental forces:
>>Link<< (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FundamentalForces.html)

[Narfle]

sure. You can say that of the 4 it is the weakest force, which is acceptable and possibly undebatable. I'm no physicist, nor chemist, nor astronomist. I just try to apply common sense and philosophic knowledge.
Still, as stated, if gravity is mass dependant, and such cannot rip apart the quarks within an atom, then what about being able to control, hypothetically, defying physical laws, gravital force, changing the gravital pull from a specific mass. What if, for example, you could somehow generate an extra gravitational pull into a specific object, making the pull enormous on a needle pin sized element. Wouldn't that significately alter the power of gravity?

Nuclear force is so powerful because it doesn't apply to range, but on short distance and force. Gravity is the widest spread force, but proportionately, ignoring the fact that it applies to such a wide campus, instead focusing gravital force on a short distance with full strenght, wouldn't it make it more powerful than the nuclear force?

What about black holes, what about that pull? It applies to a short range and sucks every particle in. Even a nuclear explosion.

lol thanks man, i needed that, i recently lost a game because of a tardfaced noobcunt, and that really cheered me up again.

Anyway, since Raw explained why your common sense failed hard and your philosophical knowlegde is insignificant to that of my cup of coffee, i wont bother going into detail.

[RAMON17739]

sure. You can say that of the 4 it is the weakest force, which is acceptable and possibly undebatable. I'm no physicist, nor chemist, nor astronomist. I just try to apply common sense and philosophic knowledge.
Still, as stated, if gravity is mass dependant, and such cannot rip apart the quarks within an atom, then what about being able to control, hypothetically, defying physical laws, gravital force, changing the gravital pull from a specific mass. What if, for example, you could somehow generate an extra gravitational pull into a specific object, making the pull enormous on a needle pin sized element. Wouldn't that significately alter the power of gravity?

Nuclear force is so powerful because it doesn't apply to range, but on short distance and force. Gravity is the widest spread force, but proportionately, ignoring the fact that it applies to such a wide campus, instead focusing gravital force on a short distance with full strenght, wouldn't it make it more powerful than the nuclear force?

What about black holes, what about that pull? It applies to a short range and sucks every particle in. Even a nuclear explosion.
You tried; and you failed.

[_Archangel_]

Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity.

How exactly do they get theories like this? :confused: I aced physics in high school this year but I'm not going to continue it for university so I guess I'm never going to know.

To those saying black holes' gravity is huge, remember that the mass contained in a black hole is massive. The Schwarzschild radius (Minimum radius of a spherical mass if it is to be a black hole) is GM/c^2, G = gravitational constant of 6.67300 x 10^-11, M is the mass of the black hole and c is the speed of light (300,000,000 metres per second). Rearranging this for mass, M = rc^2/G. This means the mass of a black hole, in kilograms, is 1348718717218642289824666566.7616 times its radius in metres. (Correct me if I'm wrong someone)

Well obviously that is why the gravity of a black hole is so strong; the mass is simply enormous compared to its size.

[Narfle]

How exactly do they get theories like this? :confused: I aced physics in high school this year but I'm not going to continue it for university so I guess I'm never going to know.

If you want, i can PM you where to find the documentary that initially told me about it, you wouldnt be the first one to request it. Its streamable and of quite acceptable quality in both video and audio.

And no, mass is not -irrelevant-, the force we are discussing is called MASS attraction.

In fact, mass is quite relevant....

[Narfle]

Please don't try to lecture experts about things you have no clue about. That's just silly.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA

outstanding sir, outstanding!

What is 5 times 9? Well i dont know, but the 5 is clearly irrelevant!

[Narfle]

F = GMm/R2

Take a wild guess what the M and m are symbols for.

Knowing you, you will need a hint, its in the name of the law.

Okay, in the beginning of the name of the law.

ITS THE FIRST WORD IN THE TWO WORD LAW!

[Narfle]

The mass of a black hole is irrelevant, the important physical property of a black hole is it's density, that is enoug matter per space that the escape velocity of said space exceeds that of light. Seeing this, it's obvious that a black hole can have any mass, with a lower boundary of ~ 2.18*10^-8 kg called the plank mass.

Sir, that may very well be one of the major defining properties, yes.

You considering yourself an expert? Sure is funny, yes.

This thread being about gravity? Yes.

You replying to a person talking about the gravitational pull of a black hole in a thread about gravity and in your reply stating that mass is irrelevant? Yes.

Me lolling hard? Yes.

You pretty stupid ****head? Yes.

Im curious, what color is the sky in your world? 5 or 8?

[crazysheep]

Non-Wikipedia source for black hole information:

>>Link<< (http://www.phys.vt.edu/%7Ejhs/faq/blackholes.html)

The pertinent parts to the black hole argument are discussed there. But the lower limit on the mass of a black hole in space would be governed by the mass of the star that collapsed to form the black hole. Hence.. a typical black hole in space would weigh more than 3 times the mass of our Sun.

In the case of a black hole, the more suitable explanation for its strong gravitational pull could be the extreme warping of spacetime fabric near a singularity.

[Narfle]

Yes.

Please, by zeus fat butt, just leave this thread.


Nono, i want you to say mass is irrelevant when it comes to gravitational pull again.

[crazysheep]

No. You don't need to necessarily collapse a start in order to form a black hole. You just need enough energy/mass in enough space.
The keyword was "in space", which was supposed to mean black holes forming as a result of the collapse of a star - the star needs to be at least 3-5 times the mass of the Sun to be able to form a black hole when it collapses.

But you are correct about the density requirements for a black hole, which is why some doomsday talk revolves around the LHC producing mini black holes.

[Narfle]

The mass is completely irrelevant when it comes to gravitational pull.

I agree.


More mass leads to a larger blach hole though.

I agree. Its handy that our universe has a mass restaurant that delivers then, and that all black holes are ultra rich. Because, if that restaurant didnt exist, i simply dont know how a black hole would get more mass and become bigger.

But you have to realize its only when the horizon is even.


'Space' is physical jargon for space and doesn't necessarily mean space

rofl

oh man, im so close to siggin that, but i still think the one i currently have is superior.

[Fiesta]

raw is involved with darkfall

his point is invalid

[Fiesta]

your mom is invalid

your face is invalid

[Fiesta]

http://z0r.de/1248

no u

[Zulukas]

Im speaking relatively naturally.

The whole physics debate in the other thread (as petty and bickery as it may be) made me feel like people might enjoy this debate.

First of all, in case you disagree, go find a magnet and get it to pick up a needle. That magnet just wtfpwnd the entire planets gravitational pull.

And yes, i mean the weakest force we know of, naturally, it would be sorta silly to debate things we have no ****ing clue about.

There is a BBC Horizon docu about it titled "Whats wrong with Gravity?" (great series btw, i also reccomend their episode Human 2.0) which you can go watch in case this interests you and you want to hear what the expoirts say about it.

I wont link you because of the foram rools, but its probably on any of the TV streaming sites you pirates use daily, at least it was on STC when i first saw it.

Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity.

Lets see what you nutjobs turn this thread into.

EDIT: Yes i realize i should have said "Universe" in the title, not "Multiverse". I guess im too fond of the word.

It really is amazing when you think about the irony of things here.

The sun generates a powerful gravitational field that is strong enough to keep planets orbitting it for billions of years.

While the electrical field of a subatomic particle is strong enough to overpower gravitational pull.

Another thing to think about here is the long-range effects of forces. As I already stated, gravity has an immense range, enough to keep entire galaxies rotating for eons. And enough to keep clusters of galaxies rotating, and ultimately the entire universe.

While the electric magnetic field possibly has the smallest effect (which can be amplified, but still never has quite the range of a grav field) And then there is the magnetic field (which amazingly is proportional to the electric field, and its calculus-based formulas are interrelated [google the formula for an electric field and a mag field])

I <3 physics :D This is exactly why I'm going into electric engineering

[gral]

actually learned something from the forums... anyways i cant contribute much cause im a dumbass but hope you guys keep this thread alive for awhile its a good debate.

[KnightDavion]

Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity.


Lol this is just pure nonsense for fun of course.

For anyone who is seriously interested (unlike the OP) in gravity keep reading. Einstein gave us the best picture of gravity we have to date. Einstein realized that the effect of gravity, between say the sun and the earth for example, is identical to the effect of of two objects moving independently in a curved space.

Picture a large flat rubber sheet pulled tight with a bowling ball in the center. The ball warps the sheet, the closer you are to the ball the more the sheet is warped. Now lets say you take a marble and roll it in the sheet. It will roll around and around the bowling ball, like a roulette wheel. You see, the bowling ball isnt exerting any real "force" on the marble in this example, it simply warps the sheet, and the marble does its best to follow a straight path on a curved surface.

The bowling ball in this example is obviously the sun and the marble is the earth. This is a VERY good way to think about gravity and what it does to space-time, BUT you need to realize that the sheet in this example is effectively two dimensional and space-time has three linear dimensions. Still the effect is identical.

The idea that gravity is "weak" because its bleeding in from some other parallel universe that 1) cant be observed by us and 2) has no impact on our universe in any observable way is pure science fiction. But really scifi writers do a heck of a lot better job at making fiction believable than the OP's steaming pile of post.

Gravity may be the "weakest" of the forces but its the only one that act sat large distances and is always attractive. It is different from the other forces, but so what? I fail to see how gravity is somehow "worse" than the other forces.

[TheDrNick]

Einstein's theory of curved spacetime is only one of the plausible explanations given. You failed to mention about viewing gravity from a quantom mechanical view.

The other of the fundemental interactions are mediated by hypothetical elementry particles, hypothetical because, although we can't see them, they theoretically exist. The existance of gravitons is predicted by string theory, and supports a quantom representation of gravity. The graviton "carries" the gravitational force between two objects.

Whilst this may seem proposterous, the way I was taught to imagine it is two people are standing facing away from each other on a frictionless surface. One person throws a boomerang away from him, pushing him towards the other (in accordance with newtons third law), then, once the boomerang has curved back round, the second person catches it, pushing him towards the centre too. The diagram below kinda shows the path it takes.


/-----<-----------<----------\
|nothingherenothinghereotn|
\ -->--- ( : => <= : )-->---/


It is very hard to explain how gravitons work, but then all of quantom mechanics is. However, it works in reality.:p

[KnightDavion]

Einstein's theory of curved spacetime is only one of the plausible explanations given. You failed to mention about viewing gravity from a quantom mechanical view.

The other of the fundemental interactions are mediated by hypothetical elementry particles, hypothetical because, although we can't see them, they theoretically exist. Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity.
The graviton "carries" the gravitational force between two objects.

Whilst this may seem proposterous, the way I was taught to imagine it is two people are standing facing away from each other on a frictionless surface. One person throws a boomerang away from him, pushing him towards the other (in accordance with newtons third law), then, once the boomerang has curved back round, the second person catches it, pushing him towards the centre too. The diagram below kinda shows the path it takes.


/-----<-----------<----------\
|nothingherenothinghereotn|
\ -->--- ( : => <= : )-->---/


It is very hard to explain how gravitons work, but then all of quantom mechanics is. However, it works in reality.:p

You have some correct ideas in here but you are still way off. Firstly, a QUANTUM (not quantom) theory of gravity has been the major intellectual goal of the 20th and 21st centuries. String theory is completely outdated by super string theory and even that has fallen to the wayside in favor of M Theory or "P-Brane" Theory (get it pee brains?) depending what the person wants to call it.

I have only learned about quantum mechanics in broad strokes so far, I am far from an expert. But the tiny amount I have learned tells me you haven't really studied the subject seriously because statements like "Anyhow, the theory is that the gravity we experience is some sort of spill from another universe which is adjacent to ours, and in their universe they have "real" gravity" make absolutely no sense to a person with any training in the area.

Why exactly do you need another parallel universe to explain gravity? It can be completely explained without the need for such untestable postulates...

Again, use the Principle of Economy!!!!!

[KnightDavion]

raw: If you are going to refute something ive said cite a source please. Ive read all of Hawking's books and none of them focused on gravitons spilling over from one brane to the next that I recall. It may have been mentioned in passing but not much more. I was actually upset that he barely even discusses M theory in Universe in a Nutshell which was supposed to be the modern version of Brief History...but back on topic.

As far as I know Newton's laws of conservation prevent this "spilling over" or have we abandoned all of the fundamental laws of physics in favor of the psuedo-science used for THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS.


Theres no principle of economy?


philosophy
also spelled Occam?s razor, also called law of economy, or law of parsimony,
principle stated by William of Ockham (1285?1347/49), a scholastic, that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; ?Plurality should not be posited without necessity.? The principle gives precedence to simplicity; of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed ?Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.?

source Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424706/Ockhams-razor


Since you have obviously never heard of it the short version is that science rejects all parts of a theory that cannot be observed, with good reason. If you start trying to account for things that do not have observable effects you open the door to just about any theory you want, crazy or not (kind of like the OP wow look at that) All of your multiple universes bleeding over onto ours fall into this category. Ill let that one slide, but be careful about getting all "know it all" when it comes to this subject, because you don't.


Also please lets try and debate civilly, theres no reason to get angry. Save all the "my epeen is bigger than yours" comments and type something we can discuss.

[HONYoda]

The science channel had a great special on the 5 string theories and supergravity and the newest theory, M-Theory (membrane theory) that supposedly explains EVERYTHING that we can think of at this point. That is how a woman from Harvard University came up with the explanation that gravity leaks between two universes.

[Zulukas]

Wrong. The range of the field generated by an electric charge is infinite, just like the range of the gravitational field generated by mass.

However, since the universe is globally and locally mostly neutral it is save to say to cut-off the coulomb field, that is V'(r) = k*1/r*exp(-a*r) with a being the cutoff radius. In case of r->infinity we see that V(r) = V'(r) = k*1/r which is Coulomb again.

Note that V'(r) is called the Yukawa-Potential which nicely describes the Strong Force as well.

Yeah thats true, but I meant in just a general layman's view. If you take the electric field from a point of an infinite distance, the field goes to 0, but thats where your logic comes, because it is impossible to have an infinite distance.

[OTRobin]

Again a post of mine got completely deleted, I'll call in the administration now.

its called quality control

[coolmans]

its called quality control



http://www.ahoypropellers.com/html/images/quality_control_image.jpg

[OTRobin]

arguing about physics with high schoolers is p serious

[OTRobin]

youre rediculous your actually more awful than anything chavo did to this forum

please leave and go back to darkfall for life

[coolmans]

repost of post

Originally Posted by KnightDavion http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?p=926442#post926442)
raw: If you are going to refute something ive said cite a source please.
no u.


Quote:
Also please lets try and debate civilly, theres no reason to get angry.
Your arguments are ridiculous, your language is ridiculous and your conclusions are beyond ridiculous. Everything that you wrote here is so full of misinformation and nonsense that I doubt you had any education on this field at all. You really should start working on your skills before talking down others.


win!!!

[crazysheep]

Has anyone wondered why string theory, supersymmetry, brane theory and other theories exist? They are all theories constructed in the hope that one of them would be able to unite the four fundamental forces in a single Grand Unified Theory or a Theory of Everything.

@KD: Right now the biggest challenge to a unified theory is trying to unite gravity - quantum gravity as well as Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein's theory fails at the quantum scale. So at this point alternative theories capable of explaining the observations are being accepted, one of them being the "bleeding" of gravitational force [as described by the OP]. So we can't just fall back on the curvature of spacetime to settle the present dispute. All theories are open for debate.

[OTRobin]

you're a boring troll

factual trolls are like, late 90s

[OTRobin]

http://static.darkfallonline.com/df_community_publisher_468x60.jpg
SAVAGE 2 FOREVER!!!1
#hon.de @ quakenet
#honsucks @ chatnet - the place to rant
TEH NOOBERIST CONQUERS DARKFALL!

a sig of a true intellectual

[coolmans]

it's better than all these signatures depicting random women or other things, an annoyingly colorful background and an indecipherable font, so small that your eyes explode when you try to actually read it. and robin.


i concur

[OTRobin]

an annoyingly colorful background and an indecipherable font

http://static.darkfallonline.com/df_community_publisher_468x60.jpg

[OTRobin]

so yeah in conclusion go back to general beta

[coolmans]

in conclusion you should stay the **** out of threads involving me. on the bright side i posess a tool to make just that happen!


blacksmith?:blac:

[Evergoth]

If gravity is the weakest force and can still be used to generate energy, I say we harvest the whine force as energy, imagine thousands upon thousands of lonely nerd whining about their team's scout/nh. they could provide energy for millions!

[coolmans]

Not serious enough a response, expect deletion any minute now! Plus you're insulting all the whining nerds. I hope the moderators stick to their rules, because that would just be hilarious.

But knowing our mods, it's personal taste that drives the decision and not objective and along-the-law judgement.


yeah thats why i always get banned every week

[KnightDavion]

Has anyone wondered why string theory, supersymmetry, brane theory and other theories exist? They are all theories constructed in the hope that one of them would be able to unite the four fundamental forces in a single Grand Unified Theory or a Theory of Everything.

@KD: Right now the biggest challenge to a unified theory is trying to unite gravity - quantum gravity as well as Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein's theory fails at the quantum scale. So at this point alternative theories capable of explaining the observations are being accepted, one of them being the "bleeding" of gravitational force [as described by the OP]. So we can't just fall back on the curvature of spacetime to settle the present dispute. All theories are open for debate.

Wow there was a real reply in this awful mess of a thread.

Yes ofc, a quantum theory of gravity is what everyone is racing for, but does that mean we have to throw out every fundamental law in the book to come up with a theory that works? I don't like the idea of theories that cannot be tested, such as this multiple universe theory. The Law of Parsimony will keep removing untestable portions of the theory so unless you throw out that law too its time to go back to the drawing board.

Keep in mind that quantum mechanics doesn't actually predict ANYTHING. All it does is say that if you run an experiment a certain number of times you the result will be A in a certain number of cases and B in a certain number of cases etc. QM is more of a set of rules that the universe operates on than a scientific theory. Sure we can use and abuse the rules to create transistors and laptops and internet message boards, but we still can't predict anything via quantum mechanics. A quantum theory of gravity wont change that, and whiles its obviously a very important piece of the puzzle I think we still have a long way to go for a true "Theory of Everything".

I think we might find out more about gravity if focus on space-time itself and things like ground state energy (zero point energy). Lets look at the real fabric of the universe, you know the stuff that gravity is actually warping, and maybe that will give us some clues as to what to look for in a quantum theory of gravity. Thats just my 2cp though.

[coolmans]

Wow there was a real reply in this awful mess of a thread.

Yes ofc, a quantum theory of gravity is what everyone is racing for, but does that mean we have to throw out every fundamental law in the book to come up with a theory that works? I don't like the idea of theories that cannot be tested, such as this multiple universe theory. The Law of Parsimony will keep removing untestable portions of the theory so unless you throw out that law too its time to go back to the drawing board.

Keep in mind that quantum mechanics doesn't actually predict ANYTHING. All it does is say that if you run an experiment a certain number of times you the result will be A in a certain number of cases and B in a certain number of cases etc. QM is more of a set of rules that the universe operates on than a scientific theory. Sure we can use and abuse the rules to create transistors and laptops and internet message boards, but we still can't predict anything via quantum mechanics. A quantum theory of gravity wont change that, and whiles its obviously a very important piece of the puzzle I think we still have a long way to go for a true "Theory of Everything".

I think we might find out more about gravity if focus on space-time itself and things like ground state energy (zero point energy). Lets look at the real fabric of the universe, you know the stuff that gravity is actually warping, and maybe that will give us some clues as to what to look for in a quantum theory of gravity. Thats just my 2cp though.

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm112374636/quantum-physics-for-dummies-steven-holzner-paperback-cover-art.jpg

[KnightDavion]

IM not really debating with you raw, as you are obv just a troll but if anyone out there wants to know who is actually full of ****, here's my source, Dr. Hawking. He puts it way better than I can:


quantum mechanics does not predict a single definite result for an observation. Instead, it predicts a number
of different possible outcomes and tells us how likely each of these is. That is to say, if one made the same measurement
on a large number of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one would find that the result of the
measurement would be A in a certain number of cases, B in a different number, and so on. One could predict the
approximate number of times that the result would be A or B, but one could not predict the specific result of an individual
measurement.



A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 4
file:///C|/WINDOWS/Desktop/blahh/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/c.html (1 of 5) [2/20/2001 3:14:40 AM]


EDIT - NVM I guess your whole post already got deleted. Oh well so sad for you.

[KnightDavion]

Hawking:

That is to say, if one made the same measurement
on a large number of similar systems, each of which started off in the same way, one would find that the result of the
measurement would be A in a certain number of cases, B in a different number, and so on.

Me:


All it does is say that if you run an experiment a certain number of times you the result will be A in a certain number of cases and B in a certain number of cases etc.

I'm pretty sure I got the meaning correct. I am also pretty sure you will never stop trolling, ever.

[Juular]

ITT: people with no real knowledge other than wikipedia debate quantum physics.

[KnightDavion]

You don't comprehend what he is saying at all. That's why I am advising you to go read a book about the topic and THEN come back. (Just that you wouldn't because you would be ashamed about the amount of bullshit you just pestered us with and would sit in a corner and weep.)



sorry, but i am an professuhnal qwantum exsperd

No, you are just trolling me. At this point obvious troll is obvious and boring. I never claimed to be as eloquent as Dr. Hawking, but I paraphrased his thoughts in a perfectly reasonable paragraph.

Whatever, I know you are just trolling so I'll let it go. If you can cite a source of your own I'll take a look at it, other than that ..i..

[crazysheep]

Yes ofc, a quantum theory of gravity is what everyone is racing for, but does that mean we have to throw out every fundamental law in the book to come up with a theory that works? I don't like the idea of theories that cannot be tested, such as this multiple universe theory. The Law of Parsimony will keep removing untestable portions of the theory so unless you throw out that law too its time to go back to the drawing board.
Our present notions of fundamental laws may very well be flawed. Hence we may need a paradigm shift before we start seeing any light in the whole mess of quantum theories of gravity.


Keep in mind that quantum mechanics doesn't actually predict ANYTHING. All it does is say that if you run an experiment a certain number of times you the result will be A in a certain number of cases and B in a certain number of cases etc. QM is more of a set of rules that the universe operates on than a scientific theory. Sure we can use and abuse the rules to create transistors and laptops and internet message boards, but we still can't predict anything via quantum mechanics. A quantum theory of gravity wont change that, and whiles its obviously a very important piece of the puzzle I think we still have a long way to go for a true "Theory of Everything".
Quantum mechanics doesn't take in initial states and churn out a neat answer for the final state, that's true. But being able to predict probabilities of a certain final state occurring still makes it worth using.


I think we might find out more about gravity if focus on space-time itself and things like ground state energy (zero point energy). Lets look at the real fabric of the universe, you know the stuff that gravity is actually warping, and maybe that will give us some clues as to what to look for in a quantum theory of gravity. Thats just my 2cp though.
There might be one problem looking at the fabric of spacetime, because we are 3-dimensional beings living in a 4-dimensional world. Visualisation of the warping of spacetime may have to wait for advances in holographic technology for us to visualise 4D spacetime.

[TheDrNick]

I found this New Scientist article on the subject of gravity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.400-gravity-may-venture-where-matter-fears-to-tread.html

Whilst the theory the article is based on is still in its early stages, it does highlight how little we know for sure about gravity. And, whilst not streaming in from other universes, it could be evidence that we exisist in a Universe with many dimensions, prehaps even infinite.

Ill let the more gifted physisists on this thread mull over it, I think this goes beyond my expertise.

[crazysheep]

I found this New Scientist article on the subject of gravity.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.400-gravity-may-venture-where-matter-fears-to-tread.html

Whilst the theory the article is based on is still in its early stages, it does highlight how little we know for sure about gravity. And, whilst not streaming in from other universes, it could be evidence that we exisist in a Universe with many dimensions, prehaps even infinite.

Ill let the more gifted physisists on this thread mull over it, I think this goes beyond my expertise.
Better yet, this article just came out when I checked the NewScientist website.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html?full=true

[Hash]

There is no such thing.

they renamed it after the guy who thought of it

guy was this friar, William of Ockham

idk maybe no one in this age and day has heard of him or his shaving implement

[KnightDavion]

Better yet, this article just came out when I checked the NewScientist website.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html?full=true

I read it but honestly I don't know much about holography. It sounds interesting from what I can understand.