"Gravity Does not Exist!" Says scienctist (except not really) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=bravehat;23357637] Well we know that force is carried by certain particles and our current theory predicts that the Higgs Boson and particles like it carry the force of gravity. Which is good because that means we can alter gravity and I could get my ass a warp drive :smugdog:[/QUOTE] Wait what? No. The Higgs boson is the mediator of mass, the graviton is the mediator of gravity. The graviton is theoretically massless, so they're not even bound, and the graviton does fit inside the string theory but doesn't on the Standard Model, as opposed to the Higgs Boson. A warp drive would be impossible due to the simple fact that the only force observed to alter the spacetime curvature is gravity. By altering gravity you're making stuff come to you not the other way around. We don't need faster than light travel anyway, there's still no need to go that far if we haven't even observed all planets on the Solar System. That and I just found something that cannot be explained by gravity as an entropy based phenomena, gravitational waves. They exist, they can't be denied, how in hell do you explain that by entropy?

...I'm not trying to explain shit through entropy though :raise: And we still haven't observed gravitons. And to achieve a warp drive all we need is a way to alter gravity, and area of low gravity behind the "ship" and an area of high gravity in front of the ship and you effectively start riding a wave through the fabric of space time. even if we can't create and area of low gravity we could just make a really high area of gravity ahead of the ship and use the standard gravity/lack of gravity as the low gravity. And we don't [I]need[/I] to but it would be pretty awesome to be able to get to other stars, cause unless we're near light speed that's gonna be a painfully long journey.

[quote] a respected string theorist[/quote] lol, no wonder he sounds crazy. Btw for those who don't know why I'm bringing this up it's because recently many scientists have been questioning the very basics that string theory and lots of other subatomic physics are based on.

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;23358617]lol, no wonder he sounds crazy. Btw for those who don't know why I'm bringing this up it's because recently many scientists have been questioning the very basics that string theory and lots of other subatomic physics are based on.[/QUOTE] If only we could observe at the Plank scale :sigh:

[QUOTE=bravehat;23358267]...I'm not trying to explain shit through entropy though :raise: And we still haven't observed gravitons. And to achieve a warp drive all we need is a way to alter gravity, and area of low gravity behind the "ship" and an area of high gravity in front of the ship and you effectively start riding a wave through the fabric of space time. even if we can't create and area of low gravity we could just make a really high area of gravity ahead of the ship and use the standard gravity/lack of gravity as the low gravity. And we don't [I]need[/I] to but it would be pretty awesome to be able to get to other stars, cause unless we're near light speed that's gonna be a painfully long journey.[/QUOTE] No, the OP's "scientist" is. The fact that we haven't observed them doesn't mean they're not there. These are massless particles that are essentially indiscernible from the neutrino background. There are a whole load of particles that exist theoretically, but that have to exist for many other theories to be true, the quintessential one would be the Higgs boson. And using gravity bending as a medium of propulsion would only make catastrophe ensue. You're completely forgetting the fact that there are thing around you, and that gravity isn't linear. By pulling yourself forward with a gravity field assuming you can create one ( Which by the way isn't the reason why the Higgs boson is important, since as I said, the Higgs boson is the mediator of mass ), you are going to face two incredibly tough drawbacks. The first, time. By creating a gravitational "pool" you are altering spacetime. You would see absolutely no difference in speed using this system because you're bending spacetime, thus you would, essentially, travel a long distance in a very long time, for you, although you would go fast for an observer outside of this system. And that's not the point of warp drives. Second, direction. It would be absolutely impossible to properly deduce where should you "aim" your gravitational field to go on a straight line, from point A to point B, in the shortest time possible. Why? Simple, the space curvature does never really benefit you, you would in a way either enter orbit or change your direction completely. In a plane where it is already hard to tell where you're going, this doesn't really benefit you at all. So yeah, dunno where you read that, but that's not a possible way of making a warp drive. If all, the Orion project seems more plausible.

:wtc:

Isn't the Orion project, if I remember correctly like dropping nuclear bombs out behind the ship and detonating them so that the ship rides the shockwave? Or was that something else from the 60's and 70's v:v:v And nah what I mean is, make an area of high gravity ahead of the ship, so it sort of "falls" toward the gravity well, but because the gravity is created by a hypothetical machine at the front of the ship the well moves with the ship so it constantly falls forward and accelerates. Yeah of course there will be massive issues with this and I know I'm pretty much just fantasising here, but it would be nice. :( And dude as you go faster you experience time dilation, time goes slower for the person experiencing the high speed than for someone moving slower. A journey that could take say a thousand years for an outside observer might only take 10 for the pilot of the spacecraft, and I'm pretty sure gravity acts in a linear direction dude.

We need aVoN in here.

[QUOTE=GummyPanties;23354425]I am curious how things work, but the stone in my shoe is the fact we can't leave any rocks unturned. We must tackle as much as we can at the same time. Why not take our time focussing on one thing so we can use something we actually know for a fact to explain something else? Basically we're researching stuff that's way out of our league, and whatever it is most scientists say, is considered the factual truth. We don't know everything there is to be found on this earth, but we claim to know so much about space.[/QUOTE] Oh right, I didn't realise you were the one that dictates what everybody does. My bad.

[QUOTE=bravehat;23359409]Isn't the Orion project, if I remember correctly like dropping nuclear bombs out behind the ship and detonating them so that the ship rides the shockwave? Or was that something else from the 60's and 70's v:v:v And nah what I mean is, make an area of high gravity ahead of the ship, so it sort of "falls" toward the gravity well, but because the gravity is created by a hypothetical machine at the front of the ship the well moves with the ship so it constantly falls forward and accelerates. Yeah of course there will be massive issues with this and I know I'm pretty much just fantasising here, but it would be nice. :([/QUOTE] I'd say the even bigger issue would be braking. You can't exactly get rid of a gravitational field. And yeah, the Orion project was that plan to detonate nuclear bombs below a ship to propel it. It essentially works, the problem is guiding it. Most other issues are already resolved, except well, the contamination and possible damage. But yeah, if we did that back in the 60's we would already be in Alpha Centauri.

Somehow I don't think detonating several hundred nuclear warheads to propel a space ship is a logically sound idea. How would you even shield the craft from the massive EMP? And if we can control gravity and create a field then there will be a fairly easy way to shut it off, pull the machines plug :science:

I'll be glad when a string theorist comes up with a theory that can actually be tested. But I like what this guy is doing regardless of if he is right or wrong. The more questions the better.

For the guys who haven't read the article. Unlike what your high school science teacher has told you (or for some of you, will tell you) gravity is not a force that attracts all mass together. instead, mass causes a dimple in the fabric of spacetime that other things "roll" towards. say, i drop a bowling ball on a mattress. A pea will roll toward the bowling ball, but the bowling ball will not move towards the pea. [img]http://www.clowder.net/hop/railroad/Gravitywells.jpeg[/img]

Actually the bowling ball will , ever so slightly, everything pulls on everything, just at distance and at certain sizes it's tiny. What I want to know though, is why my cheerios are pulled towards each other. Seriously, fill a bowl with milk and put a few cheerios in, swirl em around and then leave em, the cheerios get close to each other then accelerate towards each other and stick together :byodood:

[QUOTE=bravehat;23360762]Actually the bowling ball will , ever so slightly, everything pulls on everything, just at distance and at certain sizes it's tiny. What I want to know though, is why my cheerios are pulled towards each other. Seriously, fill a bowl with milk and put a few cheerios in, swirl em around and then leave em, the cheerios get close to each other then accelerate towards each other and stick together :byodood:[/QUOTE] maybe the as the cheerios absorb some of the milk it sorta causes a tiny "pull" on cheerios around them because the milk is moving ever-so-slightly because of the absorption?

[QUOTE=bravehat;23360430]Somehow I don't think detonating several hundred nuclear warheads to propel a space ship is a logically sound idea. How would you even shield the craft from the massive EMP? And if we can control gravity and create a field then there will be a fairly easy way to shut it off, pull the machines plug :science:[/QUOTE] Shielding the craft is quite easy, the problem is any neighboring structure. That's why you're supposed to launch those from either the sea or a desert. EMP blasts don't spread that far. That or we can just launch it from outside the magnetosphere, that way nobody will be affected anyway. Depending on how you see how the field was made, you'd have to get rid of the graviton or the spacetime curvature. I think no one has ever researched if either is possible. [QUOTE=Pepin;23360590]I'll be glad when a string theorist comes up with a theory that can actually be tested. But I like what this guy is doing regardless of if he is right or wrong. The more questions the better.[/QUOTE] He's suggesting something entirely banal and that is that gravity is due to entropy. That's fucking ridiculous, gravity is NOT a thermodynamical process. [QUOTE=bravehat;23360762]Actually the bowling ball will , ever so slightly, everything pulls on everything, just at distance and at certain sizes it's tiny. What I want to know though, is why my cheerios are pulled towards each other. Seriously, fill a bowl with milk and put a few cheerios in, swirl em around and then leave em, the cheerios get close to each other then accelerate towards each other and stick together :byodood:[/QUOTE] Compare the sinking of a mattress as done by a bowling ball and as done by an ant. The ant's weight is so ridiculously low that the part of the mattress it actually sinks it's pretty darn near 0. There's essentially no change in trajectory on the behalf of the bowling ball. While it is true that the gravitational force has infinite range, it doesn't mean that anything will make you gravitate towards it. Gravitation is only observably executed by incredibly massive bodies like planets. As for the Cheerios bowl. Look at the shape of the bowl for a sec. The milk will flow from the sides to the bottom, so when you swirl the milk around, you're causing the cheerios to move with the movement of milk, which, as said before, will try and flow to the middle of the bowl. Hence, why they stick together in the center. They stick because they get soggy. The milk in the bowl is moving even if you don't notice it sometimes, hence why it can take sometime until they stick.

I would assume the gravitons would be produced by something akin to radioactive decay. Actually I'll stop it's kinda late here and i'm half asleep I'm just gonna keep making an ass of my self :v:

[QUOTE=GummyPanties;23355838]I can see where you're coming from, but rationalizing something we don't understand with something else we don't understand will only make us more confused when we find out the truth. I have yet to see a scientist confess something is too big a mystery at the moment, instead they make up a bullshit story about it and people decide to roll with it. I'd rather have no answer than a incorrect answer. False answers causes us to interfere with things we shouldn't, but because we think we understand it, we can. And that often leads to more problems than leaving it alone.[/QUOTE] Stepping stones, my friend. Theories change all of the time to adapt new information and observations. I mean, think of all of the models that popped up in the late 1800s/early 1900s to explain he atom. Most of them are now considered wrong, or overly simplified, even though at the time they may have been considered correct. But they were just stepping stones on the way to a more whole, explained, correct theory. Bohr's model of the atom only really applies to Hydrogen, and even then it wasn't ENTIRELY correct. But it was a very important stepping stone in the model of the atom. You've just gotta be patient, man. Our theories change. You've just got to keep an open mind and be willing to accept that things have changed when more evidence is presented. Dark matter, for example, isn't bullshit. It's just a theory that attempts to explain the fact that galaxies stick together even though there doesn't appear to be NEARLY enough mass in them for that to be the case. So there must be some kind of unseen, or 'dark' matter there. Well, that, or some of our fundamental understandings are wrong.

[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;23341512]Is this 'scientist' batshit insane?[/QUOTE] No, we're just in the process of switching from one scientific paradigm to another.

Come on people, can't you read anything that's more than 10 words? Read more than just the title, please.

[QUOTE=bravehat;23360762]Actually the bowling ball will , ever so slightly, everything pulls on everything, just at distance and at certain sizes it's tiny. What I want to know though, is why my cheerios are pulled towards each other. Seriously, fill a bowl with milk and put a few cheerios in, swirl em around and then leave em, the cheerios get close to each other then accelerate towards each other and stick together :byodood:[/QUOTE] It's the capillary effect, son.

A theory is a theory without proof.

[QUOTE=Glorbo;23377759]Come on people, can't you read anything that's more than 10 words? Read more than just the title, please.[/QUOTE] Most people aren't very good at reading long stories

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;23344922]This man is full of shit, god did this all and we needn't worry.[/QUOTE] This is a science debate not religious. Also, I thought if regular matter came into contact with dark matter it would be like dividing by 0.