Discussion Forums > The Lounge
An individual who screws up the term, "Theory"... / "Proof"?
Borror0:
--- Quote from: mizore on April 28, 2010, 06:37:09 AM ---Lol, there is so much wrong in this thread I wouldn't know where to start... :-\
--- End quote ---
You could start by being not condescending.
mizore:
Take it as you will... I see no patronizing tonality, and certainly didn't mean it to be perceived in that light.
Nothing wrong with lol'ing at misinformation, imo.
Lord of Fire:
--- Quote from: fohfoh on April 28, 2010, 04:29:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: newy on April 28, 2010, 04:22:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: mgz on April 28, 2010, 12:52:47 AM ---pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms
--- End quote ---
I doubt that. Even my physics prof told me to accept the gravity since there is no explanation how gravity is generated when a huge mass is present. He told us whoever finds a satisfying theory can directly fly to Sweden to receive the Nobel Prize.
--- End quote ---
The attraction properties of the chemical aspect of all elements causes a buildup when a large mass is present. Similar to the idea where larger droplets will "suck" smaller droplets into themselves instead of vice versa. Attraction properties amass at a large scale and based on the elements in question, there will be a certain amount of pull overall of a "heavenly mass" AKA planet. Gravity as well as light testing will be a useful idea when we decide to crack open a planet to take up the valuable minerals inside. IF gravity is too weak, it might not be worth your while to crack open the planet in question...
When you get the money... Don't forget me.
--- End quote ---
So, how does gravity work? Why does it work the way it does as described? What IS gravity (and I don't mean the one you find in your dictionary)?
And if you have all the answers, can you prove them through experimentation? Can you produce the same verifiable results over and over again that directly lead to the concrete and undeniable proof of your statements regarding the inner works of gravity?
fohfoh:
--- Quote from: Lord of Fire on April 28, 2010, 07:49:09 AM ---
--- Quote from: fohfoh on April 28, 2010, 04:29:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: newy on April 28, 2010, 04:22:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: mgz on April 28, 2010, 12:52:47 AM ---pretty sure that gravity has been tested both with math and observed in atoms
--- End quote ---
I doubt that. Even my physics prof told me to accept the gravity since there is no explanation how gravity is generated when a huge mass is present. He told us whoever finds a satisfying theory can directly fly to Sweden to receive the Nobel Prize.
--- End quote ---
The attraction properties of the chemical aspect of all elements causes a buildup when a large mass is present. Similar to the idea where larger droplets will "suck" smaller droplets into themselves instead of vice versa. Attraction properties amass at a large scale and based on the elements in question, there will be a certain amount of pull overall of a "heavenly mass" AKA planet. Gravity as well as light testing will be a useful idea when we decide to crack open a planet to take up the valuable minerals inside. IF gravity is too weak, it might not be worth your while to crack open the planet in question...
When you get the money... Don't forget me.
--- End quote ---
So, how does gravity work? Why does it work the way it does as described? What IS gravity (and I don't mean the one you find in your dictionary)?
And if you have all the answers, can you prove them through experimentation? Can you produce the same verifiable results over and over again that directly lead to the concrete and undeniable proof of your statements regarding the inner works of gravity?
--- End quote ---
You totally missed the sarcasm in my statement didn't you?
Though in my best guess...
Gravity is a build up of attraction forces pulling things towards "Oneself". "Oneself" being a mass of different discernible physical aspects. When several masses are placed side by side, all attraction forces are pulled towards the biggest mass. So in that instance, having 3 candles on the ground, forces are being pulled towards the ground which is the biggest mass. However, in the instance that all masses are no longer capable of being pulled further, (ie: objects on a ground) the forces do not get sucked into the biggest mass due to the stronger nature of the chemical bond within particles but instead begin to disperse along the surface of that biggest mass until it meets another mass. In this scenario, the forces will act on each other in the form of the masses being within close proximity. Thus if we could see this force, it would be in a shape of a water droplet. Or, an ellipse with one side bigger than the other with the bigger side on the bottom or the side closest to the biggest mass.
Also. Testing gravity on Earth is not a proper way to conclude gravity. It must be tested in the absence of gravity. Why? Because the Earth is not subjective on the topic of gravity. We could do so, but we'd have data on "Earth Gravity" and not "Actual gravity". Same instance of the idea of the difference of gravity on the moon vs gravity on Earth.
PS: I am not being serious, just tossing in random thoughts. In no way should I be considered "serious" in the idea of science. I'm no science expert and I don't understand it very in depth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version