Print

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

[Hungry]

If someone was to tell you something that changed physics and still fits nicely into what is known of physics already, what would you say?

This a is theoretical discussion only.

[Jude]

I would say I couldn't contribute meaningfully to the topic without a graspable, specific example...

[Hungry]

Example purposes only:urist mcphysics invents an anti-gravity theorum...

[Cthulhu]

I guess I'd say, "Whoa, that's really something."

What can you say?  I'm no physicist.

[cowofdoom78963]

I would say nothing. I would just stare at them.

[Jude]

I guess I'd say, "Whoa, that's really something."

What can you say?  I'm no physicist.

This.

Also, I would doubt them extremely hard, if they were presenting an "anti-gravity theorem." I guess for the sake of argument I would understand physics, too, which is absolutely not the case.

[Enzo]

I would drink a beer and reflect on how little theoretical physics actually affects my day-to-day life.

[Fossaman]

I would sigh, shake my head, and think of this Venn Diagram.

I'm sorry, physicists. I'm still convinced the science drove you mad and now you're just making crap up.

[Strife26]

Ruminate on how it'd change the design of heavy tanks . . .

[MrWiggles]

I would wonder why they are telling a bunch of fourmites and not submitting their proof or theory to creditable journals and accepting their Nobel prize. I would also wonder if they understood what they were speaking to, and how well read they are on the subject.

The ultimate put up or shut up, then I wouldn't mind listening anyway, as the math (if any) may be beyond me, the logical follow through are probably not.

The example of anti-gravity, may change something though the concept itself is not revolutionary. It hinges of knowing how gravity propagates through space and time. Its currently unknown and postulated that it is a particle associated with mass, and has been named the Higgs Bosson.

The nicked named god damn it particle, has yet to be discovered, if it exists. The LHC is suppose to be capable of discovering the buggers.

I then would reflect on this a little more before speaking as a theorem is strictly for math and pretty math is pretty pointless without empirical observation or empirical experimentation.

I then may be wondering again if they understood the definitional difference between theorem, theory, and proof in context of scientific academia.

[Vector]

If someone was to tell you something that changed physics and still fits nicely into what is known of physics already, what would you say?

"Good for you.  Do you have mathematical support, or do we have to clean up after you guys again?"

...

That's what I'd want to say.  I'd probably really say something like "Oh, that's wonderful" and leave.

[MrWiggles]

If someone was to tell you something that changed physics and still fits nicely into what is known of physics already, what would you say?

"Good for you.  Do you have mathematical support, or do we have to clean up after you guys again?"

...

That's what I'd want to say.  I'd probably really say something like "Oh, that's wonderful" and leave.

Well he did say theorem, so I would surmise he does have math of some sort.

[x2yzh9]

Here's my list of opinions.

first priority is Artificial Gravity, this would eliminate the loss of bone mass while in space, allow births, etc. Would make colony life MUCH MORE EASIER.

Second priority is anti-gravity. Not much use besides earth-like planets that are bigger then 1G's worth of mass, or anything like that.

But the key problem here for both Artifical gravity and Anti-gravity, is that in physics gravity is, albeit the weakest, one of the four forces of the universe. It's like one of those things, you can't 'trick' the universe into thinking something when it's a law of physics. By current physics it'd be impossible to implement a artifical gravity, because-

Mass=Gravity. Obviously you couldn't replicate enough mass to put an A-grav on your ship, and even then you wouldn't be able to move an inch. Which is why i don't think Artifical gravity won't be here for awhile.

[Vector]

Well he did say theorem, so I would surmise he does have math of some sort.

... I have never seen a physicist who does not mangle mathematics and has a real idea as to what a theorem might be.

Counterexample: Sir Isaac Newton <3

My point: still standing.

[MrWiggles]

Well he did say theorem, so I would surmise he does have math of some sort.

... I have never seen a physicist who does not mangle mathematics and has a real idea as to what a theorem might be.

Counterexample: Sir Isaac Newton <3

My point: still standing.

Hey, he may have been bat shit crazy but the man had to invent calculus for his law of motions. He deserves some credit.