One can count from either side to zero, one can count down from a positive number abouve zero or count upwards from the negative numbers.
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
How Gravity Works
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Which thought aren't you sure of why I think it?
As far as I know, we know what gravity does and there are a couple ideas about how it works, but nothing conclusive. As you said, you are nailing it down but that means it isn't nailed down completely, right? If it was totally definable, then why would people be still hypothesizing about it? This guy, for instance: physics @ berkeley
My other thought is that gravity works quite well.
Last edited:
Oxford dic==person with expert knowledge of a physical or natural science; person using scientific method.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett
"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett
"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." Wallace Thornhill
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it." Richard Feynman
He's wrong. The ones I know actually do physical work and after they've accumulated data, they do the numbers thing.
There's a huge difference between a theory and guesswork. Creationism can only remotely be considered an hypothesis.
Now you've stated the reason for science; to get to the point of understanding.
Oh. Well, can't see it anyway so I'll just guess it's some quack's negative opinion about science.
I don't think Mr Proffesor Fenymen will respond. The point is Anna, my what have you done with your hair, it's stunning, ah the point is according to Proff Fenyman is that the big bang is creation, the stories are essentially the same. Modified to fit the times and the moods.
You are a very religious person. You believe that everything exploded out of nothing in a big cloud of smoke. The bunny does not really come out of the hat Anna. Scientific slight of hand is as old as science or will you tell me the human scientist is impervious to the errant ways of the human. Thick amidst the scientific ranks we find the most horrific examples of psycopathic monsters. Of course they are not exclusive to science but they are exclusive to power.
Those hills are rich in ores eh. What real scientist would let his ego rule and not take good sound advantage of the thinking of others.
In a private conversation some years ago Dick confided in me that he did intend a wider broadcast of that net, which included BB, allah be praised, and academia in general. I forget the name and location of the bar.
In a private conversation some years ago Dick confided in me that he did intend a wider broadcast of that net, which included BB, allah be praised, and academia in general. I forget the name and location of the bar.
A lot of discussion about gravity, considering Newton knew all there was to know from just having an apple land on his head.
Dexters religion only allows him to consider the peer sanctioned universe of which he is only allowed to set eyes on seven or eight per-cent max, the rest being the holy of holies and thusly and obediantly shrouded behind the impenetrable veils of darkness, to remain the twin forbiddens of exotic matters and energies beyond the imagination of mere mortals. These mysteries it is said govern the entirety of gods creation. God is powerful and mysterious.
Tis a great pity that so many of our brothers and sisters have become victims to fog of math. They cannot appreciate an pork chop without the math. We must pray with them for enlightenment. one two three four seven ahmen
Tis a great pity that so many of our brothers and sisters have become victims to fog of math. They cannot appreciate an pork chop without the math. We must pray with them for enlightenment. one two three four seven ahmen
There are 3 main meanings for the polish word kurwa:
1. literally a *****, prostitute
2. a highly offensive term for a woman
3. used as world "****" in English language.
CHINA!!!!!!! Such language!!!!! And from YOU!!!8O The great and gentle all-seeing philospher. And to use such terminology in CC!!!! I"m aghast!!!
Surely someone will run to a mod and demand this travesty be removed. OH MY GOD!!!:-
-(
China, you have assaulted my pristine ears with your salty language. You should be forced to walk the plank. Or at least be reprimanded by the authorities. If I could give you a red rep I wood.
Which thought aren't you sure of why I think it?
As far as I know, we know what gravity does and there are a couple ideas about how it works, but nothing conclusive. As you said, you are nailing it down but that means it isn't nailed down completely, right? If it was totally definable, then why would people be still hypothesizing about it? This guy, for instance: physics @ berkeley
My other thought is that gravity works quite well.
Do not mistake the lack of consensus in the quantum gravity community with a lack of understanding of classical gravity. There is absolutely no observation where quantum gravity is necessary and it could be possible that there is a plurality of theories instead of a grand unified theory: general relativity could survive the whole way down. Any new theory must reproduce the results that general relativity (together with proper matter equations) already explains, and so it must contain general relativity (or its appropriate limit) in an appropriate limit.
And there are a lot of observations to explain: gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation, gravitational wave emission rates, the compactness and lack of emission of Sagittarius A* (it's a black hole), the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Actually, peer review only extends down to the CMB, the surface of last scattering. Before that there are no observations (as far as I know), and there is nothing forcing anyone to believe anything.
Thus people are free to speculate beyond that point, and the big bang lies beyond that point. There is no consensus on the big bang because there is no evidence, although whatever occurs before the CMB is often referred to with that label.
This is the chief difference between science and religion: in science, where there is no hard evidence, people are free to speculate. And people will only believe your pet theory when you have the hard evidence.
The CMB is hard evidence. At one point in time, the universe was filled with a hot dense plasma.