/sci/ - Science & Math

You're thinking of magnetism. How gravity works is that anything with mass emits gravitons which attracts particles to the mass.

>>15439565
There are no gravitons. Only magnetism. Earth isn’t shooting you with tractor beams like an arcade game. It’s just a big fucking ball of protons and electrons.

>>15439566
By that logic the earth's poles have have the weakest points of gravity.

>>15439565
It's inertia from centripetal force plus special relativity. There's no coping from this.

>>15439584
I don’t get your thinking. Since the poles are flatter than the equator you’re closer to more stuff and therefore the poles would have more gravity. The electromagnetic force gets weaker with distance just like gravity.

>>15439556
does gravity repel like magnetism?

>>15439593
No because gravity is the result of many particle interactions summed up. Those are all canceled out.
>So why is there slight gravity instead of none?
Because magnetism naturally aligns particles such that they’re closer to particles they’re attracted to. The sum of magnetism will always bias towards attraction in the large scale.

>>15439556
gravity is the friends we made along the way

>>15439556
My nuts on your chin dont exist.
... yet...
But for real, wasnt electromagnetic force as substitute for gravity a debunked theory?

>>15439655
>le deboonked
Pointless speculation without an explanation.

>>15439596
Now hold one a minuteeeee
The reason why gravity is incopatible with QM is because we cant explain gravity teough interaction of particlea while other forces we can.
Why are you selling poor quallity tea here.
Also my nuts are more and more attracted to your chin rn.

>>15439666
Nigger, I just explained it with particles.
>my dogma I can’t justify says…
I don’t fucking care. I’m on an anonymous website not writing a grad paper. I don’t give a fuck what’s popular because I’m on 4chan.

>>15439556

>>15439556
>Most of the time they do. That’s why gravity is so weak.
lol
>gravity is so weak
Is that why black holes break Physics?Hell, dont nuetron stars smash atoms together so much the components become fluidic and float about?

>>15439671
Ohh woow. I cant wait for you to publish a paper so i can read it.
Also this nuts are now deflected by your chin.

>>15439674
Namefag, go back to the pop science channel.
>>15439675
Nigger, go back to jail.

>>15439680
My Theoretical Mathematics are beyond cutting edge and known measures of reality.

The fact you cant differentiate intelligent and stupid is wild to me...you, LITERALLY, cannot see reality. Fucking wild, man...

>>15439680
>Gravity does not exist
>Explains gravity as particle interaction

Make your mind my dear chin.

>>15439682
>my theories are beyond reality
Yes, that’s your problem.

>>15439686
It’s not gravity. It’s particle interaction. There is no gravity.

if gravity does not exist then explain my attraction to your mother

>>15439689
So you are tallking about electromagnetism?

>>15439690
You like fat ugly lazy whores.

>>15439687
>and known measures of reality.
Youre fucking retarded.

Get the fuck off my board you TOURIST.

>>15439696
You have not measured a neutron star and have not witnessed a black hole break physics, you theoretical idiot.

>>15439556
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm9tUVI6Ehk
quantum mechanics meme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8yVJDO9HJ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZngxijknKs

>>15439693
simplest possible explanation for mass drawing mass towards it

>>15439593
Yes, which is why the moon doesn’t collide into earth

>>15439556
If gravity is electeomagnetism, explain how light is affected by gravitational pul (black hole) and not by magnet.

>>15439702
Objectively wrong on both. I dont need to see it in person to measure it. This is why pseudo-Physicists like you cant into "Theory", youre an Instrumentalist/Applied fag like Sabine.
[barf]

The Manhatten Project Physicists didnt need to look at atoms with their naked eyes to calculate atomic interactions, theyre insight to the structures of reality was ample to measure the invisible.

YOU ARE NOT A PHYSICIST.

>>15439702
Oh...and as a Geneticist, my lab is a blank chalk board. Its blank because I dont need to write out my work, I calculate in my head. Its simply a symbol I use to enter "work-mode".

Chemists Geneticists use a lab...I work in the field.

>>15439556
I too am a believer in a theory of everything.

>>15439725
I just had Deja vu with your post.
CoP you have many knowledge. What is your take on Deja vu and such stuff?

Also, dont you think abstract thinking alone can be missleading sometimes? We abstract stuff and turn it into concepts yes, and it can be useful to contemplate them etc. as you mention theoretically. But what when there are more then one theoretical explanations? Dont we need to then return to observing in order to see which theory predicts behavior of a system better?

>>15439739
>What is your take on Deja vu and such stuff?
The human body contain multiple brains, Schizophrenics have one or more brains conceptually seperate from each other like when a cell biolectrically seperates from other cells (cancer etc). In order to give a more detailed answer I would need a specific example (but probably would need more information than another person could give, but if it was in myself I fould dissect it futher, I need data that humans cannot put into words, which I use.)

>abstract thinking alone can be missleading sometimes
Sure. Happened to Einstien, Hawking and countless others. True Scientists adjust the Theory upon new data, charlatans dont because "being seen as right" is more important to them than being right because adjusting the Theory inversely implies they were incorrect, which they cannot admit to themselves, let alone others.
>But what when there are more then one theoretical explanations
First Principals, Axioms, etc, can clear most of those up and for most of Physics history that was enough, but when it comes to these high dimensional Unified Theories it becomes very dofficult to differentiate such differences that amount to near Planck scale differences. Possible (if youre insane enough to be able to construct an atom in one's head.)

Caveat though; Once the Theory enters that scale its basically only discernable to other Physicists that work at that scale, so the only people I would even listen to about that level of Physics are Physicists that they themselves have their own, personally made, Theory of Everything. We share and compare, its fun!

>Dont we need to then return to observing
Yes, I stare at my conceptual chalk board while alone in a room listening to the same song for the 1,000th time as its on repeat for deays, weeks or sometimes months.

>in order to see which theory predicts behavior of a system better
Nah, at this scale there is no verification (yet), blackhole energy levels, etc.

>>15439756
>First Principals, Axioms
I often think of this example. If one knows the direction of travel you can know other forces emergent direction vectors, so I dont need to "know it all", only the one I can verify and the rest can be deduced using logic.

The difficult part was figuring out the order of forces, which comes first and what is predicated on which other. Or as Jordan Peterson would say; Dominance Hierarchy.

>>15439713
Black hole big, electro-magnet small.

>>15439817
Graviton small, Magnetar big.

:3

>>15439817
Or photon no charge, photon no can be affecto by electro and magneto.

>>15439784
Now that you mention this, would you recomend a good starting literature for someone who did not study phisycs.
I have some knowledge, but its mostly surface level no matter the field.

>>15439877
Not really, I read Brief History of Time as a kid (just out of boredom while in detention), always watched Discovery channel space stuff growing up, so even though I didnt focus on Physics as a kid it was always in the background.
>but its mostly surface level no matter the field
Ditto. Um...in the beginning I watched things like PBS Spacetime and other entry level Physics education lectures and simply worked my way up to full blown university lectures. I just kept watching entry level stuff until I found myself correcting them or getting irritated by the perspective, and that would be my signal to move to deeper waters.

>>15439556
Gravity is just the path of least resistance.
Makes more sense if you treat the whole universe as a big circuit.

>>15439877
Ive actually read very few books but the books I would read would always be "advanced". So the ones I would suggest would be ones just a little bit too advanced for your level, and if youre learning just for fun, then that would be best. Aim a little high as youre not being tested on it so if there is a paragraph a page you dont get thats ok.

When I read Brief History of Time I didnt understand about a third of it, the equations mostly, but I just took in what I could and tried my best. It took many lectures on spacetime to fill in the gaps.

Okay schizo post here:
Who is to say that black holes are not an elaborate cloaking device that is simply trapping/banding light rather than pulling it in via gravity?

>>15439945
>>15439900
Thank you for advices CoP.
I agree aiming high allways proved good thing for me. I dont expect that i will understand all in first try, but i do like being hit with massive ammount of information that i need to combine and make sense off.