Personally I think this THEORY of gravity is a bunch of bullshit.

5/13/2005 8:20:25 PM

agreed.

but its a good enough approximation for now

so stfu and live with it

5/13/2005 8:21:22 PM

i thought about making this thread title

then i realized it sucked

5/13/2005 8:21:36 PM

yes

5/13/2005 10:42:53 PM

Quote :

"This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

5/13/2005 10:43:18 PM

May the Force Be With You

5/13/2005 10:48:46 PM

gravity also isn't used to attack religious beliefs, so I have no problem w/ it

5/13/2005 11:05:41 PM

I saw a guy drop a bible on the floor once

gravity was SO part of that

5/13/2005 11:27:33 PM

^^ It's my personal belief that gravity isn't a reasonable explanation.

Things can't just move on their own. I think it's pretty obvious that GOD moves objects, not GRAVITY.

5/13/2005 11:30:27 PM

i'm sure it was, but the theory itself didn't attack religion, so there's no problem. Now, the guy taht dropped the Bible is probably going str8t to hell, though.

5/13/2005 11:30:40 PM

There's no room for God in gravity!

5/13/2005 11:55:08 PM

you are right, at least not the Christian God. i don't recall anything in the Bible that says anything about God directing the motion of all objects in the universe, or anything that runs counter to gravitational theory. Thus, there is no intersection between the Christian God and the theory of gravity. Please, continue this logical fallacy to its extreme, OK?

5/13/2005 11:58:55 PM

God set the rules, and the rules dictate the motion of all objects.

It is kind of like constitutional government, God has made promises throughout history, and how there is a host of angelic judges making sure he doesn't violate any of them, contradicting himself and destroying the Universe.

5/14/2005 12:05:45 AM

God may have set the rules, but I see no evidence in the Bible for any specific methods by which all objects must move.

5/14/2005 12:07:56 AM

^^

ehhh. the bible really flounders when it comes to physics

crazy shit happens that DO NOT obey underlying laws and order

ie. the sun stops in the middle of the sky, and water moves by magic

theres lots of magic in the bible. def not a good ednorsment of physics

5/14/2005 12:22:17 AM

Quote :

"and water moves by magic"

well, there have been some suggestions on how this might have happened (assuming that you are talking about moses parting the red sea), if only for a few moments.

however, the point still stands: the Bible is not a very good physics textbook. but, I don't really think it was ever intended to be a comprehensive study of physics, either.

5/14/2005 12:33:23 AM

Let's hope it wasn't intended to be a comprehensive study of geneology, either.

5/14/2005 1:12:17 AM

i hope not

5/14/2005 1:12:38 AM

actually there is a great deal of disagreement with the theory of gravity in the science community

5/14/2005 1:17:55 AM

i hope that is not sarcasm. I think most scientists agree that the principle of gravity is true. However, I think there is disagreement on the mechanism at work.

5/14/2005 1:28:43 AM

Gravitons, graviolis, et cetera.

5/14/2005 3:17:45 AM

All models are false. Some are usefull.

5/14/2005 3:11:09 PM

we need to stop teaching that the earth revolves around the sun. When we know for a fact that the earth is the center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.

5/14/2005 3:36:35 PM

Quote :

"Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen."

I hate it when people make statements presuming something incredibly great about direct evidence. No evidence is ever completley direct. You 'directly' see things through a fairly complicated process which involves a number of phenonmen that cannot be explained to the absolute fullest. By the directness merit, feel would be a greater validator of gravity. The nature of the universe in that you can lay something heavy on your stomach and feel it, or notice varying resistances to picking up various objects is perfectly echoing the details of 'The theory of gravity' and is the most direct evidence to your brain available. Either way, what are you expecting, a physical phenonmea to walk right into your brain and lay out its founding principals? Nothing is more solid in our knowledge as humans as things like 'The theory of gravity' or the theory of evolution. Being that, what the hell is the question? To handle these basic truths as if they might not be correct? We already knew that, just as much as we knew that we don't know anything with absolutley unhumanly certainty. Maybe you mean to hold them so much as uncertainities that we don't use them to create other usefull products of society. You can do that, go live in a cave and don't talk to the rest of us. I, myself, think I'll keep studying my not-so-absolute engineering.

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2005 4:12:45 PM

Was that a "woosh" I heard as that flew over mrfrog's head? It actually sounded a bit more like a sonic boom.

5/14/2005 4:59:16 PM

Quote :

"I think most scientists agree that the principle of gravity evolution is true. However, I think there is disagreement on the mechanism at work."

5/14/2005 6:59:44 PM

Quote :

"we need to stop teaching that the earth revolves around the sun. When we know for a fact that the earth is the center of the Universe and everything revolves around it."

Are you fucking KIDDING me?

The bible clearly states that there is a firmament, a dome covering the disc of the earth. I insist that any textbook claiming the contrary have a disclaimer.

5/14/2005 8:53:41 PM

The pagans worship Isaac Newton.

5/14/2005 8:57:35 PM

I dont believe in particles because 1 particle can go through 2 slits simultaneously (double slit experiment).

I dont exactly believe in waves either, because 2 electrons either collide or they dont.

When they get their story straight, then I might believe in physics.

5/14/2005 9:37:20 PM

Quote :

"I think most scientists agree that the principle of gravity is true. However, I think there is disagreement on the mechanism at work."

Note I said the theory of gravity. Which is under much more scientific debate than something like evolution

5/14/2005 10:20:26 PM

^its true. theres no debate that mass causes a gravital force ... but exactly what causes, the details, are actually heavilty debated. we now suspect that einsteins views on gravity werent quite complete and correct, even though already quite intellegent and complex.

Quote :

"I dont believe in particles because 1 particle can go through 2 slits simultaneously (double slit experiment)."

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

a photon is NOT A PARTICLE. a photon is a wave AND a particle. particles with mass dont get split, true. waves DO!!!!!!!!!!!! plz to see 208 before you make retarded statements

Quote :

"Let's hope it wasn't intended to be a comprehensive study of geneology, either. "

yea. some deushe started with adam and eve, and fudged the crap. adam begot steve, steve begot....

and from that we obtained the young earth theory. its the principal piece of evidence. interesting that how when some ass was writting the bible the year 4** AD he never thought he could be question because of all the names he threw in.

now thats chaos theory!

make up 100 name and creationism is born and grows like tumor

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 10:39 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 10:36:32 PM

Quote :

""we need to stop teaching that the earth revolves around the sun. When we know for a fact that the earth is the center of the Universe and everything revolves around it.""

Somewhere Copernicus is rolling in his grave

5/14/2005 10:36:58 PM

^nutsmakr was trolling its quite obv.

Quote :

" says anything about God directing the motion of all objects in the universe"

wait, God doesnt control everthing? was shitty omnicent being. he cant do shit!


you. are. not. smart.

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 10:42 PM. Reason : and youre wrong. the bible is very clear that God knows all, and is all ]

5/14/2005 10:41:43 PM

Quote :

"a photon is NOT A PARTICLE. a photon is a wave AND a particle. particles with mass dont get split, true. waves DO!!!!!!!!!!!! plz to see 208 before you make retarded statements"

2 waves can exist in the same space. Its called interference.

No 2 particles can ever occupy the same space. The closest they can get is adjacent.

The simple definitions of wave and particle contradict. It cant be both, and since their theory contradicts itsself, I reject their wave-and-particle theory.

The double-slit experiments have been done with photons, ELECTRONS, and others.
You plz to see 208 before you make retarded statements.

If you are correct that electrons are particles only, then why are there ELECTRON CLOUDS instead of electron positions?

Time to put you out of your misery chemistry boy...
Electrons are made of mass. Photons, energy. Mass and energy can become each other. Electrons can become (part of?) photons. These are facts. If you are correct, then a particle must be convertable to a wave, but as I proved above, no state between particle and wave can exist. Does it jump with nothing between? The wave-particle theory is not consistent.

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:01 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2005 10:47:44 PM

^ becuase you dont understand quantum theory

when electron orbit the a proton, they adopt certain quantized states, certain wave patterns. they are MODELED as a cloud, but essentially, its the area the WAVE function covers. the electron then exists as a wave.

yes, particles can exist as waves.

Quote :

"No 2 particles can ever occupy the same space. The closest they can get is adjacent."

thats not true. if you take Rb particles, and cool then Soooo cold, so close to absolute zero that that all energy occupies the same quantum state, every particle Rb become indestinguishable, and collapse to one super dense particle of the same size. its not fusion, its essentially the reduction of quatum energy until they are all at the lowest possible level, and therefor the same

(this experiment recently won a nobel prize)

so; to review

2 particles can exist in one location (quantum theory) (this has been experimentaly verified)
an electron becomes a wave near a proton (quantum theory)
light, is a wave. it can be thought of as a photon (a unite of energy) when it collides with an atom or molecule


[ i am smarter then you all so just believe me and it will be easier ]

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 10:58 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 10:54:36 PM

there are some aspects of science that we can't properly explain right now

Just because I don't know the asnwer to a question doesn't mean that the question has no answer.

5/14/2005 10:57:57 PM

^i would be the first to say 'we dont know'. but when people alledge we have no clue how some things happen while we have a widely accepted theory thats been tested and proven, i will object

5/14/2005 10:59:06 PM

Quote :

"^nutsmakr was trolling its quite obv. "

Oh, I didn't see it was him that posted it. I just saw someone had quoted that.


If I would have known he'd posted it, I would have realized that

5/14/2005 11:02:18 PM

Quote :

"New state of matter revealed: Bose-Einstein Condensate The matter surrounding us consists of atoms that obey the laws of quantum mechanics. At normal temperatures these often agree with classical conceptions, and a gas under these conditions behaves rather like a swarm of billiard balls bouncing against one another and the containing walls. When the temperature is lowered and the speed of the atoms is reduced, however, their properties will be increasingly dominated by the principles of quantum mechanics. The atoms rotate round their axes – they have spin – and this movement is described by a spin quantum number, which has to be an integer – a whole number – or a half-integer. Particles that have integer spin are called bosons, while those with half-integer spin are called fermions. Bosons show strong "social" behaviour and at low temperatures strive to gather in one and the same quantum state, the one with the lowest energy. Fermions on the other hand avoid one another. They cannot appear in exactly the same quantum state, so that states of higher energy must also be used. The arrangement of the elements in the periodic system may be understood on the basis of the fact that the electrons in the atomic shells are fermions. As early as 1924 the Indian physicist S. N. Bose carried out a statistical calculation for the kind of particles which have since come to bear his name, bosons, and more specifically light particles later termed photons. Bose presented an alternative derivation for the radiation law earlier found by Planck. Bose sent his work to A. Einstein, who realised its importance. He translated it to German and had it published. Einstein rapidly extended the theory to cover Bose particles with mass and he himself published two articles in quick succession, predicting that when a given number of particles approach each other sufficiently closely and move sufficiently slowly they will together convert to the lowest energy state: what we now term Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) occurs. Ever since publication of this pioneering work, physicists have wished to be able to achieve this new fundamental state of matter, which was expected to have many interesting and useful properties. Seventy years were to pass before this year's laureates, Eric A. Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl E. Wieman, using very advanced methods, finally managed to do this in 1995. The state was achieved in alkali atom gases, in which the phenomenon can be studied in a very pure manner. Nowhere else in the universe can one find the extreme conditions which BEC in dilute gases represents. Manifestations of Bose-Einstein condensation have earlier been observed in more complicated systems: condensation of paired electrons in superconductors (loss of all electrical resistance) and suprafluidity (loss of internal friction in fluids). Here, too, low temperatures are required. Research in these areas has been rewarded with several Nobel Prizes. As opposed to alkali-atom vapours these quantum-mechanical systems are not simple since the condensation phenomenon concerns only a part of the systems and the strong interactions involved tend to hide the BEC phenomenon."

this may be tough to understand depending on how much physical chem you know

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:03 PM. Reason : \]

5/14/2005 11:02:41 PM

Quote :

" thats not true. if you take Rb particles, and cool then Soooo cold, so close to absolute zero that that all energy occupies the same quantum state, every particle Rb become indestinguishable, and collapse to one super dense particle of the same size. its not fusion, its essentially the reduction of quatum energy until they are all at the lowest possible level, and therefor the same "

So if you had a slab of rubidium, and you cooled it enough, it would collapse in to a single particle of the same mass as the slab?

5/14/2005 11:04:26 PM

Quote :

"Bose-Einstein Condensates represent a fifth phase of matter beyond solids. They are less energetic than solids. We can also think of this as more organized than solids, or as colder -- BECs occur in the fractional micro-Kelvin range, less than millionths of a degree above absolute zero; in contrast, the vacuum of interstellar space averages a positively tropical 3 K. BECs are more ordered than solids in that their restrictions occur not on the molecular level but on the atomic level. Atoms in a solid are locked into roughly the same location in regard to the other atoms in the area. Atoms in a BEC are locked into all of the same attributes as each other; they are literally indistinguishable, in the same location and with the same attributes. When a BEC is visible, each part that one can see is the sum of portions of each atom, all behaving in the same way, rather than being the sum of atoms as in the other phases of matter."

kinda mind blowing. heres a good article, dont mind ^ that if its too technical


http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20011210/bose-einstein.shtml

5/14/2005 11:05:03 PM

^^nope. it was done with very very small particles of Rb. actually in a magnetic field with a shit ton of ingenious ways to cool the thing.

but yea, small Rb particles will become one if close, and very cold


edit; actually, i think it was Rb vapor. any alkali will work actually

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:09 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 11:06:25 PM

Josh i believe some of those weird behaviors, and because of those behaviors, Rbs are not particles. Particles can not occupy the same space as other particles. Thats what a particle is. I could take my car and say its a wave, and redefine wave to mean something with 4 wheels, but my car is still not a wave. I will not participate in the destruction of our language. Particle has meant the same thing for thousands of years. Now they've found something thats obviously not a particle. Make a new word.

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:09 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2005 11:06:56 PM

^ and physics has said;

TWO CARS CAN EXIST IN ONE PLACE!!!!!!

who destructing english...you are. if a car, it turns out, can travel thru time by going 81 mph, or do something else thats whacky, ITS STILL A CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fact; particles with mass were cooled, and did occupy the same location. EINSTEIN has said this was possible all along. but i guess youre smarter the he was.

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:11 PM. Reason : =]



Rbs are not particles. thats new TO EVERYONE. its a metal. it can exist as a vapor. we've known this for thousands of years. ifs Rb isnt a particle, then neither is carbon. neither is oxygen

which means you cant breath

which means youre dead

so...argument over

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:12 PM. Reason : -]

5/14/2005 11:10:51 PM

Particle has meant the same thing for thousands of years.

5/14/2005 11:12:50 PM

yes. its means a molecule or an atom, traditionaly.

Rb is an atom. so .... ive decided to stop arguing with someone who hasnt taken ch101

5/14/2005 11:13:36 PM

I have not once denied what happened in the experiments, but you're holding on to a word that has a newtonian meaning. That is what I'm complaing about.

5/14/2005 11:14:00 PM

well if you want to say a particle isnt a particle becuase it doesnt fit your definition of a particle, you need to understand that physics changes.


newton was wrong about everything, he got the mathematical laws right. thats it.

5/14/2005 11:15:17 PM

Quote :

"ifs Rb isnt a particle, then neither is carbon. neither is oxygen which means you cant breath which means youre dead so...argument over"

cavemen breathed the air before they knew what it was made of

5/14/2005 11:16:06 PM

^i was making the point that if you say Rb isnt a particle, then neither is oxygen

which means youre wrong about Rb not being a particle.


if gasses arent particles, then we need to recall every physics text book ever made

[Edited on May 14, 2005 at 11:18 PM. Reason : 0]

5/14/2005 11:17:05 PM