Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"

  • 87 Replies
  • 9059 Views
*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #60 on: August 12, 2007, 08:30:55 PM »
And so the meaning dies.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #61 on: August 12, 2007, 08:40:29 PM »
Found some good quotes from the book:

"Einstein independently discovered Riemann's original program, to give a purely geometric explanation of the concept of "force." We recall that Riemann used the analogy of Flatlanders living on a crumpled sheet of paper. To us, it is obvious that Flatlanders moving over a wrinkled surface will be incapable of walking in a straight line. Whichever way they walk, they will experience a "force" that tugs at them from left and right. To Riemann, the bending or warping of space causes the appearance of a force. Thus forces do not really exist; what is actually happening is that space itself is being bent out of shape."

"To Einstein, "gravity" was an illusion caused by the bending of space."
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 08:42:57 PM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #62 on: August 12, 2007, 08:46:00 PM »
Quote
I can too!  Angry

Surely the fact that there's no article on "gravity" means something.  You'd think that if gravity existed, Wikipedia would have an article on it.

Gravity doesn't exist.  Case closed.  Grin

No you can't, Wikipedia is not a source
any random person can get an account and write/grafity/delete any articles they want
there is a chance that FEs deleted the gravity article?
but more plausible is, gravity is a name for something that people don't know what it is.
One of my physics teachers once said; 'Scientists often give names to things they cannot explain, for example: Gravity'
That is true. Gravity is a force on earth but know one can see it or touch it, it is not necessarily,
(depending upon what you believe in)
a physical thing.
No, not everyone can edit it. Try yourself and see how long your change lasts.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2007, 09:14:12 PM »
I somehow think you don't understand that 1) GR and FE are not compatible and 2) that the burden you put on yourself dealing with GR instead of solving problems classically is far greater than the slight gains in accuracy.
I somehow think you don't understand that 1) This has nothing to do with the FE and 2) one does not need confine oneself to the equations of GR if they wish to solve problems.

Remember what I said about your involvement in conversations about these matters?
1) Gee, you might want to change the name of the Forum then. 2) Then one can just as easily use gravity as a force to solve problems.

Remember what I said about what you said?

Well, Gulliver, you can continue only discussing gravity as it relates to the FE all you wish.  That is your choice.  The rest of us will continue to talk about gravity in the real world, since that is what is being discussed, indeed what this particular thread started its existence as, and you will continue to be far less relevant here than you either wish yourself to be or believe yourself to be.  Most of your posts in this thread literally have no meaning since you refuse to treat the subject as it was originally intended to be treated.  :-*
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #64 on: August 12, 2007, 09:16:25 PM »
Quote
I can too!  Angry

Surely the fact that there's no article on "gravity" means something.  You'd think that if gravity existed, Wikipedia would have an article on it.

Gravity doesn't exist.  Case closed.  Grin

No you can't, Wikipedia is not a source
any random person can get an account and write/grafity/delete any articles they want
there is a chance that FEs deleted the gravity article?
but more plausible is, gravity is a name for something that people don't know what it is.
One of my physics teachers once said; 'Scientists often give names to things they cannot explain, for example: Gravity'
That is true. Gravity is a force on earth but know one can see it or touch it, it is not necessarily,
(depending upon what you believe in)
a physical thing.

Spoken like someone who literally has no idea how Wikipedia works.  Not to mention your startling inability to detect sarcasm.  ::)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 09:19:48 PM by Roundy is Invisible »
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #65 on: August 12, 2007, 09:20:20 PM »
And so the meaning decays.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #66 on: August 12, 2007, 09:47:06 PM »
Remember what I said about what you said?
Remember what I said about practicing my swing?  Well, I've perfected it and I want to try it out.  I've got the banning stick nearby at all times.  Keep pushing.  Please.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #67 on: August 12, 2007, 09:53:13 PM »
And so the meaning decays.

You want meaning, go to a fucking fundamentalist Christian forum.  :D
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #68 on: August 12, 2007, 09:54:03 PM »
Look around you, you are on one.  :D
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #69 on: August 12, 2007, 10:17:51 PM »
We use terms in science that are agreed upon by convention even though the true definition does not exactly fit that term ie: gravity is a force or electrical current flows from positive to negative. Now we know that these are not true definitions we use it to make our lives easier in calculating whatever it is we are calculating
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #70 on: August 12, 2007, 10:28:56 PM »
No you can't, Wikipedia is not a source
any random person can get an account and write/grafity/delete any articles they want
No, not everyone can edit it. Try yourself and see how long your change lasts.
The fact that people can revert your edits doesn't stop you from making them. I've editted wikipedia to win an argument before. This argument, in fact:
Ok, you found four sources for the liar paradox. The liar paradox exists. However, you said that "I always tell lies" is an instance of the liar paradox. You are wrong. Moreover, when four different people told you you were wrong, and patiently explained why, you started attacking them, called them trolls, and failed to understand their point. All you did was ask for sources.

Of those four sources you named, only one of them (wikipedia) listed "I always tell lies" as a version of the liar paradox, and it was wrong. It has now been fixed. The other three did not list "I always tell lies", and one of them even explained why it's not a paradox (technically, it explained why "all Cretans are liars" is not a paradox, but more-or-less the same argument applies). So you found one source, which was wrong, and has since been fixed. You found no others, and in fact found one which was against your case.

You have failed to convince us of anything besides the fact that you fail. Hardcore.
Here is my edit. The text I added is still there, despte over 100 intermediate edits.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2007, 10:30:45 PM by skeptical scientist »
-David
E pur si muove!

Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #71 on: August 12, 2007, 10:36:34 PM »
the problem with using wiki as support for your argument is that you need absolutely no understanding of the subject matter to tell someone they are wrong. if you wnat to taken seriously then you should be able to properly explain it your own words. whne I see a cut and paste from wiki it makes me laugh.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #72 on: August 12, 2007, 10:38:12 PM »
I think I found it. No mention of mountains though.

"Riemann then generalized these equations for spaces of arbitrary dimension. These spaces can be either flat or curved. If flat, then the usual axioms of Euclid apply: The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, parallel lines never meet and the sum of the interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees. But Riemann also found that surfaces can have "positive curvature," as in the surface of a sphere, where parallel lines always meet and where the sum of the angles of a triangle can exceed 180 degrees. Surfaces can also have "negative curvature," as in a saddle-shaped or a trumpet-shaped surface. On these surfaces, the sum of the interior angles of a triangle add to less than 180 degrees. Given a line and a point off that line, there are an infinite number of parallel lines one can draw through that point"

This is actually an oversimplification of what really happens. When you are in arbitrary dimension, the situation is a bit more complicated. There's something called the scalar curvature, which is just a number and can be positive or negative. However, a positive scalar curvature at a point doesn't necessarily mean that the angles of a triangle exceed 180 degrees, as this can depend on the orientation of the triangle. There is also something called the curvature tensor, which reflects the fact that the space may be curved in different ways in different directions. Finally, curvature can and does vary with position.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #73 on: August 12, 2007, 11:03:21 PM »
the problem with using wiki as support for your argument is that you need absolutely no understanding of the subject matter to tell someone they are wrong.

Fact.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #74 on: August 12, 2007, 11:38:25 PM »
No you can't, Wikipedia is not a source
any random person can get an account and write/grafity/delete any articles they want
No, not everyone can edit it. Try yourself and see how long your change lasts.
The fact that people can revert your edits doesn't stop you from making them. I've editted wikipedia to win an argument before. This argument, in fact:
Ok, you found four sources for the liar paradox. The liar paradox exists. However, you said that "I always tell lies" is an instance of the liar paradox. You are wrong. Moreover, when four different people told you you were wrong, and patiently explained why, you started attacking them, called them trolls, and failed to understand their point. All you did was ask for sources.

Of those four sources you named, only one of them (wikipedia) listed "I always tell lies" as a version of the liar paradox, and it was wrong. It has now been fixed. The other three did not list "I always tell lies", and one of them even explained why it's not a paradox (technically, it explained why "all Cretans are liars" is not a paradox, but more-or-less the same argument applies). So you found one source, which was wrong, and has since been fixed. You found no others, and in fact found one which was against your case.

You have failed to convince us of anything besides the fact that you fail. Hardcore.
Here is my edit. The text I added is still there, despte over 100 intermediate edits.

Point taken.  But just the same I think that if an article on something like gravity had been deleted it would have been picked up on by the administrators.  Therefore I feel that its non-existence is noteworthy as it is probably intentional.

There is still no article for gravity in Wikipedia.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #75 on: August 12, 2007, 11:48:48 PM »
I know how wikipedia works
because I have an account
and I have watched people grafity/delete my page
just to see what kind of immature people use it

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #76 on: August 13, 2007, 12:05:47 AM »
Oh okay then.  ::)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #77 on: August 13, 2007, 12:06:31 AM »
the problem with using wiki as support for your argument is that you need absolutely no understanding of the subject matter to tell someone they are wrong. if you wnat to taken seriously then you should be able to properly explain it your own words. whne I see a cut and paste from wiki it makes me laugh.

In fact I don't necessarily disagree with this.  In this case, I had already put my argument in my own words and was just using what I found (and equally didn't find) on Wikipedia as support for what I was saying.  The fact is that you can say this about any source, whether it be Wikipedia, a print encyclopedia, or a newspaper article.  You should be able to back up your argument with an outside source if you wish it to be taken seriously, and that's all I was doing here.  Note my first post in this thread where I attack the response itself on the basis of logic.

Interesting how deep my influence has gotten here, that the original subject matter of the thread has been all but derailed for a discussion about the reliability and utility of Wikipedia based on one little post by good ol' Roundy.  I'm just one voice in a sea of them, and I was simply giving my opinion on the subject and trying to back it up the easiest and fastest way I knew possible.  Sue me.  :-*

My personal opinion is that Wikipedia is still generally a reliable source, by the way.  Of course you can't always trust what you find, and I understand that.  The way I see it if anybody feels that something I post out of Wikipedia is incorrect, they are free to voice their opinion about it.  I just expect them to be able to somehow back up their argument that Wikipedia is wrong themselves.  I still don't believe Wikipedia is wrong in this instance and have seen nothing credible posted to suggest so.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #78 on: August 13, 2007, 12:09:00 AM »
Your edification of my own sentences, nearly verbatim, is flattering. Let me kiss you.  :-*
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #79 on: August 13, 2007, 12:15:43 AM »
I know how wikipedia works
because I have an account
and I have watched people grafity/delete my page
just to see what kind of immature people use it


My understanding is that a user may only request that an article be deleted, he may not do it himself.  I hate to break it to you, but if you had an article that was deleted on Wikipedia, it was probably viewed as a non-notable topic.  :(  What was the subject?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #80 on: August 13, 2007, 12:26:56 AM »
Your edification of my own sentences, nearly verbatim, is flattering.

I'd comment on this, but I really don't understand it... but thanks for saying I'm improving on what you're saying, anyway.  :-*
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #81 on: August 13, 2007, 12:32:54 AM »
I meant you basically said something I say at times, word for word. I was being half-assed sarcastic.  8)
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #82 on: August 13, 2007, 12:50:19 AM »
Oh.  Then I freely admit you're right.  Consider it a tribute.  :P 

I did pick up the sarcasm.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #83 on: August 13, 2007, 02:55:20 AM »
the subject was my ex-school
so I don't actually see how that is not credible
It turns out, some kid from a school nearby
decided to joke around
and delete the article about my old school
but their account got forzen

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #84 on: August 13, 2007, 06:47:22 AM »
This is actually an oversimplification of what really happens. When you are in arbitrary dimension, the situation is a bit more complicated. There's something called the scalar curvature, which is just a number and can be positive or negative. However, a positive scalar curvature at a point doesn't necessarily mean that the angles of a triangle exceed 180 degrees, as this can depend on the orientation of the triangle. There is also something called the curvature tensor, which reflects the fact that the space may be curved in different ways in different directions. Finally, curvature can and does vary with position.

Well, you can go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #85 on: August 13, 2007, 01:01:38 PM »
the subject was my ex-school
so I don't actually see how that is not credible
It turns out, some kid from a school nearby
decided to joke around
and delete the article about my old school
but their account got FORZEN
HOLY SHIT! ARE THEY OKAY?

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #86 on: August 13, 2007, 02:33:09 PM »
This is actually an oversimplification of what really happens. When you are in arbitrary dimension, the situation is a bit more complicated. There's something called the scalar curvature, which is just a number and can be positive or negative. However, a positive scalar curvature at a point doesn't necessarily mean that the angles of a triangle exceed 180 degrees, as this can depend on the orientation of the triangle. There is also something called the curvature tensor, which reflects the fact that the space may be curved in different ways in different directions. Finally, curvature can and does vary with position.

Well, you can go ahead and tell Michio Kaku that.
I'm sure he's aware of it already; he's also aware that most of his audience doesn't have any mathematics education past calculus, and many of them didn't even get that far, so it's unsurprising that he tries to simplify the mathematics as much as possible. At least your average joe with a highschool math education can figure out that on a sphere the angles of a triangle can add up to more than 180 - for example, take the triangle with vertices at the North Pole, Congo, and Ecuador; the sides of this triangle will be the 15 East meridian, the 75 West meridian, and the equator, and so all interior angles will be 90, which add up to 270. People have a little more trouble picturing a 4 dimensional space where the xy plane has positive sectional curvature and the zw plane has negative sectional curvature, nor are they interested in figuring out the difference between the Riemann curvature tensor, the Ricci curvature, various sectional curvatures, and the scalar curvature.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Gravity, from "Ask a Physicist"
« Reply #87 on: August 13, 2007, 02:48:51 PM »
the subject was my ex-school

non-notable topic.  :P
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?