/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6582237
unknown. one of the aluminium price problems

>>6582237
God, obviously.

When you move or something moves up you pull against gravity which gives it the energy to pull you back down.

All the energy was their at the beginning.

>>6582237

guys

guys

i got a an idea guys

what if like since we can't explain gravity

we like

ANTI-GRAVITY!!!!!

the NEGATIVE energy of anti-gravity is what provides and balances the 'positive' energy of normal (anti-anti) gravity!!

heuehhueuhehue

>>6582237
your'e mom
lel rekt

By energy do you mean the potential to do work? What the hell other kind of energy is there?

>>6582255
dark gravity
(i'll take my fields medal in the mail any day now)

I've found in general on /sci/
threads with legitimate scientific intrigue or base are often ignored, while shitposts (trollscience, people asking obviously stupid/incorrect questions) thrive.
From this I deduce /sci/ has relatively few people with legitimate scientific intrigue/ability and conclude /sci/ is full of psuedo-intellectuals who just want to feel smart/disprove obviously disprovable questions.

As for your question OP,
Gravity is a potential, which depends on its position in relation to other opjects.
At the beginning of time, everything was concentrated in a single infinitesimally small space, while nobody knows the effects of quantum gravity at this time, you can picture this point containing all the potential mass and energy of teh universe.
As the big bang occurred, the energy of the big bang was given to matter, to ''seperate'' itself from other forms of matter. As the matter was seperated, fields of gravitational potential were produced from the energy used to separate the objects.

From this we can deduce every object in the universe has a GPE with every other object. These objects have been given energy to be x distance away from eachother in teh gravitational field. The ''energy'' gravity uses to exhert a force on an object is simply the GPE of these objects being neutralized.

If you lift an apple away from the Earth, then let go, the apple will drop back towards the Earth. The reactionary force of the floor is keeping you from continuing through the Earth to the centre of mass. This is why you can still ''feel'' gravity pulling on you. If not for the reactionary force of the floor, you wouldn't feel any force and you will simply keep travelling towards the centre of mass, resulting in GPE equalibrium.

Answer your question?

>>6582261


You're basing this on the assumption that the big bang is true


also you deduce jack shit, maybe people shitpost because it's fun and adds humor to the board. Sounds like you're a little narcisstic

>>6582249
/thread

>>6582264
>implying the big bang isn't true
The only thing debated about the big bang is its cause.

>fun and humour
Would be great if 90% of the board wasn't shitposting. Shitposting and ''fun and umour'' isn't /sci/ it's called /b/

our consciousness

Chuck Norris

>>6582264
Go back to /b/ for your funny maymays.

>>6582271
>big bang caused gravity.
How do you reconcile that with net positive quantum pair production? Matter coming into existence after the big bang couldn't have gravitational potential if the big bang is the source of gravitational potential.

>>6582237
>What gives gravity the energy to keep pulling us down?
When an object is 'pulled down' it actually makes the resulting field at the locality it falls to stronger. An object that is higher up has more potential energy, when it is done falling it is closer to the field source giving that source more attractive strength.

You can think of it in a more easy to consider case, a black hole.

When a black hole swallows a star the stars energy makes the black holes gravitational influence stronger.

Same goes for something like a meteor falling to Earth, the energy of the meteor makes the gravitational influence 'pulling' things towards Earth slightly stronger.

So a gravitational field does not require 'exerting energy' to pull things down. Things fall because it allows them to reach a lower energy state.

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed any details /sci/.

>>6582237
The universe is already retracting but we aren't able to observe it yet.

Disclaimer: i'm totally talking out of my ass in the hope to spark discussion

>>6584487
space expands and time moves forward proportionally.
space retracts and time moves backwards proportionally.

>>6584669
What is this based on?
I'm legitimately curious about this subject, can someone provide some reading on this?

>>6582237
Nobody knows. It just IS. Physics cannot possibly explain the IS of this, it only describes the resulting conclusions.

Anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is shitting in your mouth.

Force is the gradient of energy.

Basically if there is energy to be released, there will be a force.

But the existence of force is not necessitated by the use of energy.

If you are asking why the earth is pulling you to its surface....


Its not. the earth does not pull you down. Earth DOES have mass, and mass distorts the fabric of space. what we generally perceive as the earth pulling us down is actually the fabric of space pushing us towards the planet.

the earth is not pulled into orbit by the sun, the space around the sun is pushing us.

>>6582237
Gravity doesn't need "energy" to pull us. (And there's no "down" in space.)

Whenever there's some mass or energy, spacetime becomes curved, which is what causes gravity. You could say this is where the energy "comes from" if you wanted to.

>>6584712
>Force is the gradient of energy.
you mean NEGATIVE the gradient. also, horrible wording.

>The force on an object, <span class="math">as\,a \,function\, of its\, position[/spoiler], is negative the gradient of the object's energy as a function of position.
fixed it for you.

You have to ask where does the earth get the energy to hold you up.

>>6585313
>where does the energy get its energy
stupid question.

>>6582237

Gravity is a consequence of the deformation space. This is not a force

>>6582249
this is why creationists shouldn't be in science.

>why is the sky blue?
God, obviously.

>>6585811
and this is why gullible newfags shouldn't come on /sci/

>>6585831