/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10759215
>Gravity is the "force" that draws mass towards "its" center.
>What is the gravity at the center?
>It cancels itself
>so 0
>So the cause of gravity is no gravity
>well...wait... I guess mass causes gravity?
>But I though gravity was the force that draws mass.....

>>10759467
>>10759467
Imagine gravity enacting on whatever there was before the big bang.
This is how you'd get a singularity.
What would gravity interact with? Must be something, because there's no reason to assume that it was nothing.
And gravity can act as long as there is something, even quantum fields (assuming quantum gravity exists).

Entropy would still increase because of the added mass to the center, this would cause the expansion.
It might still be happening on multiple locations and is causing the universe to expand even further.
Keep in mind that the singularity was infinitely small, this is why you wouldn't notice it.
However, gravity is weak, so there is a limit to the sizes of the singularities it can form.
This is why we have stars (so the mass is already acquired) before we get black holes.

>>10759502
Now substitute the word "gravity" with "chocolate pudding" and realize that they would both have the same meaning.

>Imagine gravity enacting on whatever there was before the big bang.
>Still does not explain what causes gravity nor where it came from.

>>10759215
Wait a couple decades. Let me assure you: plumbing is the most important thing in the universe.

>>10759720
If there always was something, gravity would be an inherent property of the pre-big bang cosmology.
"Where did gravity come from?" would then hold as much meaning as "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

its love

>>10760116
>If there always was something, gravity would be an inherent property of the pre-big bang cosmology.
>Only I still don't know and can't explain why
>Nor could I differentiate it from anything else that was "always something"
So gravity is chocolate pudding, basically.

>"Where did gravity come from?" would then hold as much meaning as "Why is there something instead of nothing?"
Oh so it just explains itself for no logical reason, indicating that it's made up and doesn't actually exist. Well as far as I'm concerned the chocolatey dense properties of chocolate pudding predate the properties of "gravity" when it comes to the big bang.

>>10760644
Pudding has a set density. Enough pudding could cause a singularity, but the atoms to form pudding are post big bang.

If there was something, which had to weigh lighter than the current fabric of atoms, it would be lighter than pudding. The fact that there was a something means that gravity would have enacted on it by definition.

The other fundamental forces are post quantum physics. Gravity starts at the moment (quantum) physics start

Something (particles) can't weigh nothing. It's a logical contradiction. It might weigh lesser than we have measurements for

>>10761843
>The fact that there was a something means that gravity would have enacted on it by definition.

By what definition though? It was never explained proper to begin with.

what the FUCK is going on in this thread

>>10761935
a recipe for a chocolate pudding i guess

>>10761908
Yes, because you know that gravity can't act on nothing. You should also know that a "nothing" "probably" never existed.
A nothing has never been proven to exist, only absences of specific "somethings".
A something as "big/heavy" as particles still has gravity enact on them.

>>10762156
Cont. There never is a nothing, only the absence of something

>>10762186
Darkness is the something of light. Imagine a fleshlight shining light. It still shines light in and on something. Darkness is the absence of light, but the light it shined in/on still exist. There will always be a something.

BTW people don't complain about what they don't have, they complain about what they can't do. You only miss something when you need it.

>>10762156
>Yes, because you know that gravity can't act on nothing. You should also know that a "nothing" "probably" never existed.
"chocolate pudding can't act on nothing"
>A nothing has never been proven to exist, only absences of specific "somethings".
But that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Absence of something? That's not gravity, that is "absent".
>A something as "big/heavy" as particles still has gravity enact on them.

But that still doesn't explain what causes gravity to enact on them. As far as I'm concerned then enact on each other independent of this "gravity".

>>10762219

>Darkness is the absence of light, but the light it shined in/on still exist. There will always be a something.

If there will always be something then where does gravity come in? It would just be the subject you're speaking of, (matter, mass, em).

>>10762219
>fleshlight
Kek

>>10759215
Magnetism is the most important force/thing in existence. It is quite literally magnetism all the way down/up. Matter is just magnetic interactions and it builds up into more magnetic interactions. There is no end or start to any of it; at the end of our scale of observation is just more magnetic interactions, creating an infinite amount of possible pocket universes "below" our own, and we reside as a pocket universe in an even greater one "above" us.

But maybe we need a better word to describe this force/thing. It is really less about "magnets" and more about +/-, dark/light, ying/yang. Attraction and repulsion, that's all there is and it isn't a different force just because it's "smaller" or "larger" relative to our narrow window in the scale of reality.

Hey can we have the Tesla cultists back I liked those guys.

>>10762488
>But maybe we need a better word to describe this force/thing. It is really less about "magnets" and more about +/-, dark/light, ying/yang. Attraction and repulsion, that's all there is and it isn't a different force just because it's "smaller" or "larger" relative to our narrow window in the scale of reality.

Disparity.

>>10759215
It's also a theory... which you seem to have misunderstood

>>10762488
But which came first, magnetism or gravity?

>>10762565

>>10762546
Can you explain how that theory goes? I'm not a physicist. I'm just using my intellect to contribute to the betterment of society. It seems too logical to not be true. Especially when quantum gravity is proven

>>10762577
Start with the four fundamental forces
You got so much wrong I can't even begin to explain

t.physicist

>>10762593
What if gravity is the weakest because it's the first?

>>10762565
ur mum lole

>>10762903
what does this even mean

>>10763031
Electrons have mass, gravity would enact on them as soon as they came into existence. Certain processes caused by gravity could have caused electrons to come into existence.

If there never was a nothing, the "something" would be subjected by gravity. The singularity would be formed and the big bang would happen.
Gravity is weak, but still the most important force.

>>10763043
those are certainly all words, yes

>>10762577
>quantum gravity

Was it proven because you stuck the word "quantum" in front of it?

>>10762593
>four fundemental forces

That's right everyone, the alignment of the subatomic makeup is a "force". Kind of like how "feng shui" and orienting furniture is a "force". Oh and mass still "attracts" itself, for whatever unexplained reason.

>>10762565
>came first

Illogical. From nothing comes nothing. So just go by empirical evidence.

>proof that magnetism exists: A magnet, electromagnetism, electricity

>proof that gravity exists: A bunch of people on a rock describe rocks falling toward rock. Also rock has big magnetic core in it usually. Also all matter has magnetism, but it's different from gravity for reasons we don't know.

>>10759215
>gravity caused motion

Gravity is not a force. It is a simple deformation of space-time.

>>10759215
>gravity caused motion.
All four forces cause motion.

>Gravity on the quantum level would explain why particles interact with the each other.
We know why particles interact with each other without having a theory of quantum gravity.

>Gravity is the weakest force, because it was the first force and it used to interact on the quantum level alone
How are those thing related? Also, what do you mean by "interact on the quantum level alone"? That's garbage nonsense.

>other force who don't interact/or interact less on the quantum level.
Give me a list of forces that don't interact at quantum level, please.

>Gravity moves, but also merges.
That doesn't make any sense.... Well, like the rest of OP's comment....

>>10759215
Love is gravity. At least that's what Interstellar taught me.

>>10763100
you're dumb, watch it again

>>10759215
This and gay vampires.

>>10759215
Gravity isn't a force.

>>10763045
But you should be able to pro
>>10763096
Gravity could be sooner and causes the others after the mergers of heavier metals

>>10764111
i'm not a pro but thank you for the boost of confidence

gravity is a force. its just the weakest.