Gravity isn't real

[z1ggy]

LOL



Zig, you can talk about fucking my wife in L&R, but keep your damn hands off my fysics posts.

I'm just going to hope & assume you're on some kind of drug high like you were when you made your "how to lose weight" by Dr. Moonbogg thread.

 

[moonbogg]

http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

This shows gravity doesn't fit with real stuff. It makes no sense. Like an above poster wrote, we had to invent it to make sense of why we fall down. Its an idea but we don't know what's going on around here.

 

[SlitheryDee]

What I want to know is why we couldn't come up with a better name for magnetism. There's something we really didn't understand when we named it.

"What do we call the stuff magnets do"?

"Uh...magnet...ism"?

"No, no. You can't just call it the thing plus ism. We need something more technical than that. Something that describes the specific mechanism behind what magnets do".

"Wait. How do magnets work again"?

"They...uh...you put two things together and...let's see...um...oh ah heck it, magnetism it is".

 

[moonbogg]

I'm just going to hope & assume you're on some kind of drug high like you were when you made your "how to lose weight" by Dr. Moonbogg thread.

That was a legit post and was good advice. This one is about why gravity is BS. Also, stop bullying me.

 

[Ban Bot]

this thread is going down.

Hypothesis: Gravity makes things go down.

Fact: This thread is going down.

Fact: This thread's downward movement is not caused by Gravity.

Conclusion: Gravity is not real.

With such hefty conclusions will this thread now rise? Did moonbogg just discover the secret to levitation?

 

[z1ggy]

That was a legit post and was good advice. This one is about why gravity is BS. Also, stop bullying me.

You simply came across this article while trolling the interwebz. This article doesn't say gravity is BS, it says things that don't make sense about it, ie things that science has yet to explain. Your title and your description of said article is misleading.

Does that make it any less real? Uhhh, no.

Nobody still really knows why passing current though a conductor creates a magnetic field... It just is. That doesn't mean magnetism (using the above example about magnets) isn't real or fake.

Here, I'll take an excerpt from point #1 of "why gravity doesn't make sense"

You jump up, and gravity brings you back down to Earth. You reach the brow of a hill and gravity accelerates you down the other side. All neat and tidy then: gravity behaves in the way Newton thought of it, as a force that affects and changes the motion of something else.

That, at least, was how it seemed until Einstein came along. His general theory of relativity tells us that gravity is not quite that simple.

General relativity provides a framework under which the laws of physics look the same for everyone at every moment, regardless of how they are moving. Einstein achieved this by making gravity a property of the universe, rather than of individual bodies.

General relativity describes gravity as geometry. The fabric of the universe - the four dimensions of space and time - is full ...

^ How does that describe gravity not making sense or make it "BS" ? Einstein evolved a theory. We will continue to do this about all of physics until we can answer every question. This may take a while, so stay tuned.

 

[Belegost]

That was a legit post and was good advice. This one is about why gravity is BS. Also, stop bullying me.

How can it be good advice? If gravity doesn't exist, there's no weight to be lost, so one post or the other is not legit.

 

[moonbogg]

How can it be good advice? If gravity doesn't exist, there's no weight to be lost, so one post or the other is not legit.

This was well done, but you'll notice I admitted to the effects of gravity being real. But gravity itself doesn't exist. Get it? We invented the concept of gravity to explain something we don't yet understand. Kind of like how we invented God. So believing in gravity is kinda like believing in God. Neither are real but are used to explain stuff about other stuff.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This was well done, but you'll notice I admitted to the effects of gravity being real. But gravity itself doesn't exist. Get it? We invented the concept of gravity to explain something we don't yet understand. Kind of like how we invented God. So believing in gravity is kinda like believing in God. Neither are real but are used to explain stuff about other stuff.

You are apparently suggesting that something which does not exist has an effect. That does no happen.

Now I would agree that the nature of gravity is not well understood however that you don't "get" something does not mean it isn't real. As far as invented?

No.

How can I say that?

OK. I've just invented a Fifth Force which I call "Blarb". Blarb doesn't decrease by the square of the distance, but by the cube. There. I just invented that force. Now you can take blarb and make it get stronger by an amount inversely proportional to the distance. Another can say it remains constant everywhere. Why not? After all it's invented and as such it can have any attributes. It's not real.

Now try that with gravitational laws. Here's the big one.

No matter what you do you can't change that equation and get results which agree with experiment in any world you could visit. It's a universal law, period. If it were invented I could make it anything and it would be valid. It is not.

No matter who does the experiment and compares it to the equation it works.

That's how it is.

 

[DrPizza]

This was well done, but you'll notice I admitted to the effects of gravity being real. But gravity itself doesn't exist. Get it? We invented the concept of gravity to explain something we don't yet understand. Kind of like how we invented God. So believing in gravity is kinda like believing in God. Neither are real but are used to explain stuff about other stuff.

The OP is, to a degree, correct. Gravity is the least understood of the four forces.

However, science is merely our understanding/description of the universe around us. We have mathematical models of how things interact... gravitationally... that work to an incredible degree of precision. (Landing on a comet, anyone?) BUT, no one has discovered a graviton, the hypothetical force carrier particle for gravity. So, why does gravity work? You could say that it acts like a mass on a big rubber sheet, bending the fabric of space and time. But, why does it act like this? And, why does the mass on the big rubber sheet pull the rubber sheet down? You're cheating with that description of gravity, because it requires gravity to explain the description. If we repeat that experiment in freefall, it stops working. The mass doesn't warp the rubber sheet. Why is gravity so much weaker than the other forces? I can rub a latex balloon on my head and have it "stick" to the ceiling due to electromagnetic forces. Practically the entire earth is below the balloon, all that mass pulling the balloon down. Yet, an imbalance of a few electrons causes it to be attracted to the ceiling.


About here is where the OP is wrong though - if his claim is correct, then the claim is equivalent to saying that nothing is real, because at some point for everything we know, when we get down to smaller and smaller detail, there are things we don't know.

 

[shortylickens]

Yes it is!!


Almost 50 people saw it in the theaters!


:awe:

 

[IronWing]

If gravity is fake then why were gravity boots invented? Huh? Huh?


Yeah, that's right. Gravity is real and people needed to keep that crap off their feet.

 

[lozina]

Gravity is proven by the gradual sagging of old women boobs

 

[DigDog]

posting in moonbogg thread

 

[moonbogg]

The OP is, to a degree, correct. Gravity is the least understood of the four forces.

However, science is merely our understanding/description of the universe around us. We have mathematical models of how things interact... gravitationally... that work to an incredible degree of precision. (Landing on a comet, anyone?) BUT, no one has discovered a graviton, the hypothetical force carrier particle for gravity. So, why does gravity work? You could say that it acts like a mass on a big rubber sheet, bending the fabric of space and time. But, why does it act like this? And, why does the mass on the big rubber sheet pull the rubber sheet down? You're cheating with that description of gravity, because it requires gravity to explain the description. If we repeat that experiment in freefall, it stops working. The mass doesn't warp the rubber sheet. Why is gravity so much weaker than the other forces? I can rub a latex balloon on my head and have it "stick" to the ceiling due to electromagnetic forces. Practically the entire earth is below the balloon, all that mass pulling the balloon down. Yet, an imbalance of a few electrons causes it to be attracted to the ceiling.


About here is where the OP is wrong though - if his claim is correct, then the claim is equivalent to saying that nothing is real, because at some point for everything we know, when we get down to smaller and smaller detail, there are things we don't know.

Finally someone gets it. Regarding the bolded, what I mean is that we have many incomplete descriptions of reality, although very accurate when viewed narrowly, when viewed broadly we eventually find they are not cohesive and do not form a complete theory.
This is why I claim that we can't be certain about many things, especially about something like gravity, until we grasp whatever the most basic level of reality is. The bottom of the barrel is what we need to discover in order for a complete, harmonious theory where all existing theories finally knit together, in perfect resolution to form a solid understanding of phenomenon such as gravity and not only how the phenomenon behave as they do, but precisely why they do.

EDIT: This thread is legit. Haters be damned.

 

[Belegost]

This was well done, but you'll notice I admitted to the effects of gravity being real. But gravity itself doesn't exist. Get it? We invented the concept of gravity to explain something we don't yet understand. Kind of like how we invented God. So believing in gravity is kinda like believing in God. Neither are real but are used to explain stuff about other stuff.

But "gravity" is the label used to describe the unknown mechanism by which mass attracts other mass according to a set of well tested rules. We could replace the label with "the unknown mechanism that causes mass to attract other mass."

Resulting thread title - "The unknown mechanism that causes mass to attract other mass isn't real."

This is obviously false as the effect of TUMTCMTAOM is clearly observable - hence there must be a causal mechanism, under the basic assumption that the universe is not arbitrarily defined at any instant. Whether we label that mechanism "gravity" or "TUMTCMTAOM" or "Utter Poppycock" is just a matter of linguistic assignation.

That gravity is also used to describe theories of what the TUMTCMTAOM is, is just a matter of overloading.

 

[smackababy]

While gravity is, in fact, real; the medication moonbogg is taking surely isn't. Placebos ain't working. Please change prescriptions!

 

[Fritzo]

Gravity is only there if you notice it.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy states: "There is an art to flying, or rather a knack. Its knack lies in learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss. ... Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, that presents the difficulties."

A Lesson in Flying
How to Fly
Getting Started
From The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

You must learn how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Pick a nice day and try it. The first part is easy. All it requires is the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight and the willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground. If you are really trying properly, the likelihood is that you will fail to miss the ground fairly hard.

One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't. You have to have your attention suddenly distracted by something else then you're halfway there, so that you are no longer thinking about falling, or about the ground, or about how much it's going to hurt if you fail to miss it.

It is notoriously difficult to prise your attention away from these three things during the split second you have at your disposal. Hence most people's failure, and their eventual disillusionment with this exhilarating and spectacular sport.

If, however, you are lucky enough to have your attention momentarily distracted at the crucial moment by, say, a gorgeous pair of legs (tentacles, pseudopodia, according to phyllum and/or personal inclination), or a bomb going off in your vicinity, or by suddenly spotting an extremely rare species of beetle crawling along a nearby twig, then in your astonishment you will miss the ground completely and remain bobbing just a few inches above the ground in what might seem to be a slightly foolish manner.

This is the moment for superb and delicate concentration.

Bob and float. Float and bob.

Ignore all considerations of your own weight and simply let yourself waft higher.

Do not listen to what anybody says to you at this point because they are unlikely to say anything helpful.

They are most likely to say something along the lines of "Good God, man, you can't possibly be flying!" It is vitally important not to believe them or they will suddenly be right.

Waft higher and higher. Try a few swoops, gentle ones at first, then drift above the treetops, breathing regularily.

DO NOT WAVE AT ANYBODY.

Landing
With more experience, you will learn how to land properly, which is something you will almost certainly screw up, and screw up badly, on your first attempt.

Flight School
There are private flying clubs you can join which help you with the all important moment of distraction. They hire people with surprising bodies or opinions to leap out from behind bushes and exhibit and/or explain them at the critical moments. Few genuine hitchhikers will be able to afford to join these clubs, but some may be able to get temporary employment at them.

 

[moonbogg]

But "gravity" is the label used to describe the unknown mechanism by which mass attracts other mass according to a set of well tested rules. We could replace the label with "the unknown mechanism that causes mass to attract other mass."

Resulting thread title - "The unknown mechanism that causes mass to attract other mass isn't real."

This is obviously false as the effect of TUMTCMTAOM is clearly observable - hence there must be a causal mechanism, under the basic assumption that the universe is not arbitrarily defined at any instant. Whether we label that mechanism "gravity" or "TUMTCMTAOM" or "Utter Poppycock" is just a matter of linguistic assignation.

That gravity is also used to describe theories of what the TUMTCMTAOM is, is just a matter of overloading.

That's right. Gravity is a label created to describe a phenomenon. The part about gravity not being real is the popularly accepted understanding of what gravity is. This idea of a simple force of attraction is certainly not the case. Gravity is a byproduct of an undiscovered, not yet understood mechanism of our underlying physical reality. Gravity is a consequence of something more fundamental taking place and any notion of its mechanism is currently misunderstood and illusory by necessity of that lack of knowledge.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Finally someone gets it. Regarding the bolded, what I mean is that we have many incomplete descriptions of reality, although very accurate when viewed narrowly, when viewed broadly we eventually find they are not cohesive and do not form a complete theory.
This is why I claim that we can't be certain about many things, especially about something like gravity, until we grasp whatever the most basic level of reality is. The bottom of the barrel is what we need to discover in order for a complete, harmonious theory where all existing theories finally knit together, in perfect resolution to form a solid understanding of phenomenon such as gravity and not only how the phenomenon behave as they do, but precisely why they do.

What you're saying is almost common sense though. We know something is happening. We called that something gravity. Nowhere in that statement is the implication that since we gave it a name we now know everything about it. It's just a word we can use so that when we're talking to other people about it, perhaps even in order to find out how it works, they know what we're referring to. Perhaps therein lies the answer to the dilemma you are posing. When we talk about the observable effects of the phenomenon in question, we say gravity. When we get to the point where we actually know how gravity works, we'll call the things involved in that something else. We already make the effort to do that in specifying gravity as the "force" and the hypothetical "graviton" as the source of that force. In a way, gravity can exist even if the graviton doesn't though, because ultimately gravity is only referencing the observable effects of the underlying mechanics, not the mechanics themselves.

 

[Muse]

I suppose God is the only thing holding us down then?

I remember exactly what I was doing the day/moment I realized that God was made up by people, no more real that Spiderman, a shaggy dog story to keep you befuddled. I was looking out my window, maybe about 11 years old.

Honestly, I think that William Blake, if you told him that Gravity wasn't real would tell you you're being an ass. He might not care for your quantifying it like Newton did, but he'd say you are calling a dog a cat.

 

[disappoint]

If you can measure it, it is real.

We can measure gravity. It is therefore real.

The gospel according to moonbogg. Once he gets around to quoting me on it.

 

[Ruptga]

This thread, and the outlook that spawned it, is retarded. Go watch the Incredibles, then keep rewatching it until you understand the phrase "when everyone is super, no one will be."

When everything doesn't exist, nothing doesn't exist. You just divided by zero, and your conclusions are meaningless by definition. Also your premise is ludicrously flawed. See: heuristic

 

[Muse]

http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

This shows gravity doesn't fit with real stuff. It makes no sense. Like an above poster wrote, we had to invent it to make sense of why we fall down. Its an idea but we don't know what's going on around here.

Well, Einstein (arguably the all time master when it comes to discussing gravity), said (paraphrasing here) that children could solve some of our most difficult problems in physics because their senses haven't been distorted yet.

Do you feel the same way about magnetism? Arguably, it's completely analogous to gravity. You can't see it, you can only see its effects, it is manifested as a relation between objects. Einstein as a kid was fascinated by magnetism, he became fascinated by gravity later.

 

[Markbnj]

I ofen looked up at the sky an' assed meself the question - what is the stars, what is the stars?

I experienced a momentary episode of audible laughter.