If gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces then how

>>7671944
Why OP? Why did you post this?

<weakest of the fundamental forces
<most powerful force

Why bother trolling if you can't even express yourself clearly?

>>7671949
>forces

>force

>Not realizing these are two different words

>>7671944
Gaytheists BTFO gaytheists on suicide watch

>>7671946
>>7671949
DEATH TO FEDORAS
TIP IN HELL

>>7671951

I realize they're different words, and I realize exactly what you were trying to say. I was just pointing out that your question was not stated very well.

>>7671944

You're definitely trolling, but I'll answer the question just in case you actually don't know, or for anyone else interested.

The strong and weak forces only interact at very short distances, so they have no effect on macroscopic levels. The electrical force is INSANELY more powerful than gravity, and is also long range like gravity. However, the universe is (nearly?) electrically neutral, and so there is no appreciable electric force between large bodies in space. Gravity, however, is always attractive. There is no "negative" gravity, as there is with electricity, This is why gravity is the force responsible for galactic formation.

>>7672023
>There is no negative gravity
So what is it that makes the Universe expand at an exponential rate?
Or is something out there attracting us?

>>7672376
>So what is it that makes the Universe expand at an exponential rate?
Another type of model, the backreaction conjecture,[23][24] was proposed by cosmologist Syksy Räsänen: the rate of expansion is not homogenous, but we are coincidentally in a region where expansion is faster than the background.

File: flat earth proven.jpg (923KB, 2165x2295px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 2165x2295px

gravity is just a theory for why the oceans dont fly off a spinning round ball in space. its essence is completely hypothetical and has no use in practical applications. same with curvature and rotating earth. theoretical maths have no place in practicality. pic related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jODyhZVbTM

>>7672471
No.
Go away.

>>7672540
No. Gravity is just a theory. It's our current best one., and the math works, however there will be other postulates within the next decades.

>>7673380
>just a theory

>>7673380
Its true we still don't know allot about gravity but that doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist.

>>7672023
>There is no "negative" gravity, as there is with electricity

What about antimatter?

>>7673701
Still obeys the same law of gravity.

File: bill-nye.jpg (11KB, 300x301px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x301px

>>7671944
>the most powerful force in the universe?

the most *pervasive* force in the universe

Fixed. See how much more enlightening the world is when you actually read books and understand the meaning of words, and how to apply them in the correct circumstances?

>>7673701
Still has positive mass-energy and thus attractive gravity. If it had negative mass-energy, matter would be unstable, as it could gain energy by emitting antimatter.

File: my_hubble_numbers.gif (34KB, 657x510px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 657x510px

>>7672464
The only reason why the rate of expansion in the background is slower than ours is because when we measure things at great distances we are measuring them as they were in the past. I don't believe it's correct to say we live in an area where space is expanding faster than an area further away, but rather we measure everything locally in the present, and that the Universe is expanding faster in the present than in the past. So if you could somehow instantly teleport to somewhere millions of parsecs away, the rate of expansion would be the same as here.

File: fig_NGC2403_mod2.png (10KB, 851x758px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 851x758px

>>7675276

Oops, I used the wrong graph, here's a better one

>>7673380
No, gravity is a word we use to explain an observable phenomenon. Just because science hasn't explained it inside and out (yet) doesn't make it not real.

>>7672471
Gravity has no use in practical applications?

>What is weight?

>>7672471
Also, take that image and go shitpost in the flat-earther thread where it belongs.