/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3680432]

How gravity work!?!?!?

The best answer I have had is......'dunno mate'

[Anonymous No.3680435]

Jesus is holding the protons together.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3680440]

>>3680432
Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

[Fluttershy No.3680441]

space/time is like a trampoline. When your fat ass sits on the trampoline it curves it and makes other objects on the trampoline roll toward you.

[Anonymous No.3680444]

>>>3680435

wha.....

nooo

[Anonymous No.3680446]

A quick Google search will answer your question.

[Anonymous No.3680452]

>>3680441

Why can't I see the trampoline?

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3680457]

Gravitons are like the little cells that make a paper, and everything else is the ink from the pen. Now make it 3D.

[Anonymous No.3680460]

>>3680441
Yeah but that theory only works if gravity is applied in the first place making things fall into the trampoline dip

[Anonymous No.3680462]

it works the same way as magnets

[Anonymous No.3680473]

>>3680457
Thats the most satisfying answer I have ever heard it's perfect..... Where did you hear that?

In return to perfect answer, sleepy cat .gif

[Teacup !obkpuSWh5M No.3680483]

>>3680473
Why thank you, I made it myself :)

[Anonymous No.3680489]

>>3680441
What causes the objects to roll down?

[Anonymous No.3680503]

>>3680489
Precisely that theory is stupid because it assumes gravity is already applied

[Anonymous No.3680568]

The basic idea behind general relativity -- our current best theory of gravity -- is that it's caused by what you might describe as geometrical anomalies. Because of these anomalies, the planet beneath you, in order to stay the same size, must continually accelerate outward. When something falls, it's not actually accelerating towards the ground; the ground is accelerating upwards towards it.

What causes the non-Euclidean geometry? Well, we have an equation relating it to energy density and other quantities. It's not the ultimate truth because we've yet to reconcile it with quantum mechanics. Eventually we hope to discover some law of nature which is as deep an explanation as one can ever find. This would be a "theory of everything." But we're a long way from that point.

[Anonymous No.3680614]

>>3680440

That's the second time I've seen that video linked to on /sci/. I'm not sure it's understood by the posters themselves though.

Why? Well, first off, Feynman says "that's a very perfectly reasonable question--an excellent question!"

He then proceeds to point out the various levels of answering the question of "why." 1. How deep do you want to go 2. How well-informed are you about the particles/forces that make up the Universe around us 3. Which direction do you want to take.

But there is a terminating point for the question of "why" which he eventually arrives at in his explanation: there are some fundamental particles and forces and relationships between forces that are intrinsic in nature and can't be explained or analogized to some macro system or object you're more familiar with without "cheating you" out of a better or more pure explanation.

So, for the OP, which "why" are you asking?

Why do object attract each other? What are objects made of that causes them to attract each other? How does gravity work? What limitations does it posses?

Pick.

Ultimately, there is a level we have yet to breach: what makes up matter at a smaller level than atoms (protons, electrons, neutrons). Is it quarks? Is it something unrecognizable? That "why" is as of yet unanswerable.

Now stop posting that video unless you understand its meaning.

pic unrelated