Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

To me physics is proven because they used physics, to find a number, which advances physics further. You dont need to understand the origin of gravity to realize that gravity pulls a certian amount per amount of mass. Physics rienforces it self in a ridiculous amount of ways. You have several parts of physics (accleration, velocity, temperature, elasticity) proving each other exits though equations.

How you can compare that to religion's lack of proof is beyond me.

[Neruz]

What makes gravity a weak force?

Compared to the other 3 fundamental forces (Strong\Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic), Gravity is pathetic. It does have two things going for it however; it increases indefinitely. The more mass you put into an object, the more Gravity it has and the further that Gravity reaches, and there's no opposing force; no Anti-Gravity.

Gravity is the odd one out; it doesn't fit in with the other three forces, and nobody is entirely sure why.

[Micro102]

Idk, i think there might be an anti gravity force out there somewhere.


speaking of gravity, eventually all the mass in the universe will collect together and form another big bang, like it did an infinite amount of times in the past.

[Neruz]

Logically there should be; all the other forces have opposites, but if there is we havn't found it, and that in itself is perculiar.

[Smitehappy]

Idk, i think there might be an anti gravity force out there somewhere.


speaking of gravity, eventually all the mass in the universe will collect together and form another big bang, like it did an infinite amount of times in the past.

Actually, the "expand into nothingness" theory gained much more ground in the last couple years.

[Micro102]

No, in order to expand into nothingness, there would have to be a force coming from that nothing ness. And there is no such thing as 0 gravity, it just keeps getting weaker.

And if not then antigravity DOES EXIST!

there is also nuclear force, the strongest, which holds the atom itself together, yet i don't think they found the opposite to that either.

[Neruz]

No, in order to expand into nothingness, there would have to be a force coming from that nothing ness. And there is no such thing as 0 gravity, it just keeps getting weaker.

Nah, you just need space to expand.

[Smitehappy]

No, in order to expand into nothingness, there would have to be a force coming from that nothing ness. And there is no such thing as 0 gravity, it just keeps getting weaker.

And if not then antigravity DOES EXIST!

there is also nuclear force, the strongest, which holds the atom itself together, yet i don't think they found the opposite to that either.

Have you not been keeping up with Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Why do you think the Expansion theory has been getting so much more popular.

[Sergius]

What makes gravity a weak force?

Compared to the other 3 fundamental forces (Strong\Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic), Gravity is pathetic. It does have two things going for it however; it increases indefinitely. The more mass you put into an object, the more Gravity it has and the further that Gravity reaches, and there's no opposing force; no Anti-Gravity.

Gravity is the odd one out; it doesn't fit in with the other three forces, and nobody is entirely sure why.

Man, that sounds like gravity is not weak or pathetic at ALL. In fact, gravity sounds like that dude from the Breakfast Club that was always getting in trouble and infinite detention because he wouldn't conform to the rules. Gravity is the cool, no nonsense aloof guy. Gravity rules, baby!

[Neruz]

What makes gravity a weak force?

Compared to the other 3 fundamental forces (Strong\Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic), Gravity is pathetic. It does have two things going for it however; it increases indefinitely. The more mass you put into an object, the more Gravity it has and the further that Gravity reaches, and there's no opposing force; no Anti-Gravity.

Gravity is the odd one out; it doesn't fit in with the other three forces, and nobody is entirely sure why.

Man, that sounds like gravity is not weak or pathetic at ALL. In fact, gravity sounds like that dude from the Breakfast Club that was always getting in trouble and infinite detention because he wouldn't conform to the rules. Gravity is the cool, no nonsense aloof guy. Gravity rules, baby!

Nah, Gravity needs to bring billions of friends to beat up the other forces; mano-e-mano the other forces kick the shit out of Gravity, but when he gets enough friends togethr they go critical mass, beat the shit out of the Strong Nuclear Force and turn into a Black Hole.

[Starver]

People have an instinctual desire to believe that there is a reason for things; because if there is a reason for things then you can appeal to that reason and change things.

The idea tha things are random, that you have absolutely zero control over the world around you, is a very scary idea, to some the thought that a meteor could simply fall from the sky and we would all die for no reason whatsoever, pure random chance, is enough to give them nightmares.

God acts like a safety blanket; when something horrible happens it's alright, as bad as it was, there was a reason for it. God puts a nice warm human face on what is otherwise a cold and uncaring universe.

It's not a desire for God, it's a desire for protection.

And, as for me, I feel happier thinking that if a meteor fell from the sky it was because it had always been destined to do so, though standard causality, and the fact that it did was because nobody knew about it (or, if they did, knew how to stop it) due to the the way that the universe works in getting information (and capabilties) into the hands of the deterministic 'agents' that compose mankind.

I don't think it would help me to know (however one might do so) that there was a supreme being who let it happen, even caused it.  It would have to have a very good "This was the only way[1] that <something good> could happen" for me to consider it justifiable.

A deterministic universe with a merely incalculable future works better for me.


[1] In an omnipotent being, this would be a rather weak excuse.  I mean look at the concept of the biblical Deluge.  Those not in the ark (presumably the only boat of all kinds of others already in existence capable of surviving that long) all drowned/starved/died of sub-bleached thirst, did they?  Or were they whisked off into an appropriate afterlife (which, given  how only Noah and his associated clan were deemed 'savable' would be at most a form of limbo)?  Couldn't everyone but Noah have just been plucked out of existence without the flood happening?  Or subjected to some appropriate form of local death if the vengeful JHVH had decided to do so, saving the trouble of actually drowning the world.  Now, if it was a necessary task that Noah go ahead and create the Ark, it could have been any task.  And could still have included picking and choosing two/seven of every animal as 'special' (for the ominipotent being to spare from the animal culling as well... don't forget the killing of the overwhelming majority of all that wildlife, if it was a worldwide flood).  At the very least He could have plucked the 'worthy' from the Earth, deep-frozen the rest, recreated the planet according to current design specs and plonked the 'saved' down on it.  Although, come to think of it, that sounds like a Dan Brown-like treatment of the Flood, and thus possibly a good premise for a book.  (If you don't want to argue that this is probably what actually happened, but to the understanding of Noah & Co's decendents it got morphed into the Flood myth.)

[Starver]

How does this sound?

If god wanted to be known by everyone, then he should be able to do so right? Since he doesn't do so, he doesnt want you to.

Sci-Fi is replete with hyper-powerful beings (or at least apparently so) playing the God Card.  There's Star Trek's Final Frontier, for a start, and Star Trek has also had both antagonist and protagonist 'normal' characters emplying transporters and associated technologies to fool less technological civilisations, with the 'Greek Gods' and "Tremayne"[1][2] of The Origianal Series being somewhere inbetween.

So one could argue that He knows that there's always going to be doubters, who are going to disbelieve even when the burning bush is in front of them making them a five course meal out a breadstick and a fishfinger while surroundign them with a series of interlocking rainbows.  But then one could always argue that an omnipotent being could flip that God Switch in everyone's head to ensure that they wouldn't be.  And then one could counter-argue the whole "with proof there is no faith" thing.  And maybe God is a 'fedivore'[3].  A junkie needing His fix of belief.

Argument/counter-argument/counter-counter-argument...  "What Is Real?"

Yrs,
Brain-inna-jar.

[1] Actually, he could have been a juvenile 'Q', as might ST:FF's 'supreme being' been an incarcerated renegade Q.  And whether you consider the Q to be Near-As-Makes-No-Difference godlike or not is arguable.  (I'd say not.)

[2] If I remember that name correctly, and I may not.  Can't be bothered to find the appropriate Wiki and check, but you'll know who I mean I'm sure.

[3] If you'll excuse the neologism of my own construction for "faith eater"/"is sustained by faith", but I don't like the Latin root's coincidance with past tense of "feed".  (Using greek for "pistivore" would be "doing a 'television'" and has its own problems.

[Neruz]

Technically if he's Omnipotent it would be but a mere thought to make it so there are never any doubters.

[Starver]

No, in order to expand into nothingness, there would have to be a force coming from that nothing ness. And there is no such thing as 0 gravity, it just keeps getting weaker.

But as long as you're going quick enough to start with, the gravity that you're being slowed down with is never high enough to stop you from your (ever slowing, but never stopping) outward velocity with an ever decreasing (but never disappearing) gravitational retardation.

(The "Universal Escape Velocity" is what I'd call it.  For all I know, it is what it's called.)

This does get modified and further confused by extra Dark Energy/Dark Matter additions to the theory, but even without them you could work the maths out.  (Remember that it's not just that you're getting further away from the 'centre of the Universe', but the rest of the universe is also getting further away.  And including the repulsion of Dark Energy/whatever, it is currently thought that eventally the universe will become so 'thin' and spread out that galaxies will move beyond 'sight' of each other, then stars (or remains thereof) in a galaxy so spread out that they are beyond that limit, and progressively down until atoms themselves are rendered asunder...  Although that's obviously a theoretical viewpoint that needs more investigation.  (We've got a long time to work that one out.  Or disprove.)

[Starver]

Man, that sounds like gravity is not weak or pathetic at ALL. In fact, gravity sounds like that dude from the Breakfast Club that was always getting in trouble and infinite detention because he wouldn't conform to the rules. Gravity is the cool, no nonsense aloof guy. Gravity rules, baby!

The classic example regarding gravity is a fridge-magnet.

The fridge magnet is a few grammes of magnetic material capable of holding itself and a significant amount of non-magnetic material against a vertical surface (with the assistance of the electromagnetic/Van de Waals forces components of friction) or even on the underside of a horizontal surface against the entire gravitational pull of the planet Earth.

Or if you don't like the small amounts of matter, think of a cantilever bridge or tower-cran jib, where the intermolecular forces (and the molecular bonds themselves) manage to hold a huge hunk of matter in place out over a gap without failing through the ripping apart or compressing together of the atomic/subatomic particles that compose its material structure and maintain a strict (though dynamic) separation across vast amounts of empty interatomic space.