Have gravity been proven? i don understand what gravity is or

>>7983213
>Have gravity been proven? i don understand what gravity is or how it works. how is this a proven theory, when no one can prove gravity exist?
>
>i dint get it.
Yes

File: latest_512_0171.jpg (53KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 512x512px

>>7983217
Could you explain it then, if its so easy.

>>7983221
Www.wikipaedo.br/gravity

Because you write like a fucking infant, i'm assuming that you have little to no knowledge of physics, so here's a dumbed-down explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajZojAwfEbs

>>7983237

Well its just graphics showing how the theory of gravity is supposed to be.

But theres not a single proof that this is real. is there a single evidence to back up thees claims.

File: you go girls.webm (435KB, 636x360px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 636x360px

>>7983213
>no one can prove gravity exist?
>>7983240
>not a single proof that this is real
Here you go, OP proof that gravity is real, 1/?

File: dive.webm (1MB, 250x444px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x444px

>>7983240
>is there a single evidence to back up thees claims.
More proof of gravity.

>>7983213
Have you heard of general relativity

File: woof.webm (926KB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 426x426px

>>7983249
And a new anti-gravity tech (glass).

>>7983251
I have, and threes no proof for general relativity either.

its even worse, could you even provide a proof for general relativity?

>>7983251
Nope, I've never been to the army.
Does he use gravity to kill enemies?

>>7983257

So how does Mass Curve time?


Time is a human construct, how would mass be able to bend the perception of time?

aha, so now gravity make waves that we humans are able to detect?

Can you dudes even prove anything you say? or is it just "facts" you have learned?

File: bucket.jpg (47KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x400px

So if you are inside this bucket as it swings around. and you live on the surface of the water. would that not have the same effect as "gravity"

What does gravity have that centrifugal force dont?

>this thread
top fucking kek

>>7983275
that wouldn't work unless we live on the inner surface of a hollow sphere. and even then the poles would have no gravity (see hairy ball theorem). but if look up i see sky, not south america, so the earth isn't hollow

File: wide3.jpg (260KB, 988x966px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 988x966px

>>7983281

aha, so you Think that if a huge "Gravity" field is applied to a clock, and the clock then starts to show time slower. Is it then Time it self that is being slowed down, or the mechanics inside the clock that is being affected by a centrifugal force?

To humans, time is the passage from the now into the future. The old Now, feels like the past, and the next now is tought of as the future.

Yet it is only the exact moment right now, that we experience.

So what your saying is that a huge mass, will bend how we humans experience the passage from our current point in space, to the next?

like the clock being slowed by a centrifugal force.

And Gravitational redshift, how does this prove that the universe is expanding, and not just moving.

Do you think our planet is expanding away from the sun, because we move in a orbit around it?

>>7983305
No, i just cant understand it, thats why im asking.

i have yet to seen a single proof of gravity, or the theory of general relativity. To me it seems people are just saying "facts" witch they are unable to explain.

im unable to see the logic behind thees theory's, and those im asking.

>>7983299

em no, if you are on a object that is rotating, and falling at the same time.

then you would have the exact same speed and rotation as that object in space.

This is why 100 metric ton of gold, falls at the same speed as a gram of gold. given thre is no atmospheric friction to slow the larger object.

>>7983213
Define gravity OP

If general relativity is true. and gravity/mass is able to bend light into its curvature that is created in space from the mass.

And wouldt that prove that Light has mass, since it would be affected by the "laws of Gravity" following the curvature of space around the mass.

gravitational lens. Then If this Object is able to bend light, then why Would Stars emit light, wouldt their mass bend the light in an infinite loop around its own mass?

>>7983336
>Procession of the periastron of Mercury

Wouldt it be possible that this is just something similar to a Mirage seen in hot weather?

And not Proof of a Scientific theory.

A mirage bends the light, it does not prove that "Gravity" is able to bend light , because its creates an displacement in space.

>>7983355
So explain the mirage. Explain every phenomenon gravity explains in a simpler way. Until you do that, gravity will be the better theory. And you will never do that, because there are literally millions of things gravity explains which you don't have the intelligence to even begin to comprehend.

>>7983363
/thread

>>7983355
>Wouldt it be possible that this is just something similar to a Mirage seen in hot weather?
>is gravity a mirage
Yes of course. This falling down, it's a mirage. Can't happen.

File: gyrospace.gif (642KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 300x300px

>>7983338

"Gravity" is having the same angular momentum as a object falling and rotating in space.

So gravity would be defined as the effect of falling back into the angular momentum you had before you used force to get away.

This is why "gravity" wont work over long distances, since you brake the angular momentum your attached to.

File: ibent you.jpg (6KB, 338x212px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 338x212px

>>7983363

a mirage is the refraction of light, like when you put your penis in a glass of water.

It would be just as silly for me to claim that my glass of water is able to bend light around its own mass.

File: bustedknee.gif (492KB, 287x216px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 287x216px

>>7983262
>no proof for general relativity either.
https://www.google.com/search?q=proof+of+general+relativity
...and still more proof gravity is a thing.

>>7983386
So you believe there are bodies of water (or some other median) megaparsecs wide causing all this light distortion?

I think I'll go with Occam's Razor. Piss of and buy a physics/astrophysics textbook.

>>7983378

Then why is gravitational lensing proven during solar eclipse?

Do you not think the hot gasses from the sun would have the same effect as mirage?

its the same thing, just on the sun.

File: baby-raccoons-cute-animals-pictures-pics.jpg (303KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1920x1200px

>>7983270
>Time is a human construct,
Then why can inanimate objects measure it?
And what about raccoons?
Why do they grow up if they aren't human, and are thus immune to time?

>>7983399
>Then why is gravitational lensing proven during solar eclipse?

Because you can't observe stars in the daytime you twit. And if it's daytime you won't have that body of mass bending the lights path

File: 260px-1919_eclipse_positive.jpg (8KB, 260x334px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 260x334px

>>7983403
>And if it's daytime you won't have that body of mass bending the lights path
I meant "night time" not daytime

Here's the actual photo taken by Authur Eddington which pretty much confirmed GR

>>7983402

What sort of inanimate object measure time?

>>7983403

>>7983408

How about you 2 get a strong flashlight, put something in front of it. and compare it to a solar eclipse.

It does not prove that mass bends light. and that would prove light has mass. and those making the entire general relativity theory incorrect.

Are you unable to see the error in this logic?

Nothing can move faster than the constant speed of light, yet mass in space is able to bend the light from a path at maximum velocity.

Would you care to explain how this is possible?

>>7983430
>How about you 2 get a strong flashlight, put something in front of it. and compare it to a solar eclipse.

this is either b8 or you are not intellectually capable to understand what I'm saying.

bye

>>7983445

So im dumb, because you are unable to provide proof of a truth you believe in.

File: fuckthisthread.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>7983450
No, you have displayed thought this thread that you are unable to comprehend the least complex attributes of general relativity therefore, it isn't worth the effort to continue trying to explain it to you. I've provided 4 different proofs of general relativity and you don't accept them.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html

http://www.astro.cardiff.ac.uk/research/gravity/tutorial/?page=3thehulsetaylor

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Gravitational+Redshift

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_experiments

File: 1456311183668.png (490KB, 530x545px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 530x545px

>>7983485

>Feeding the troll

>>7983237
So they figured this out from a 2 mile long laser right?
How do they account for the curve of the earth using these lasers?

>>7983556
Just kidding figured it out in my head

>>7983247
>>7983249
Things fall? Who knew? Unfortunately that doesn't prove gravity. Gravity is one possible—unproven—explanation for why things fall. By your logic, God has to exist since we are alive. You are mistaking the clear reality of being alive (or in your case, things falling) with a theory that has no empirical data. Quite obviously a logical fallacy.

File: Coleman.jpg (5KB, 233x267px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 233x267px

>>7983569
>Things fall? Who knew? Unfortunately that doesn't prove gravity. Gravity is one possible—unproven—explanation for why things fall.
Good Lord, no.
"Mass attracts mass" is certainly proven.
"Gravity" is the word we use to describe the effect.

>By your logic, God has to exist since we are alive
You've lost me there, Francis.
Help me out, why _do_ you hate christfags so much?
Were you "raised catholic" (wink, wink) as a boy ?

File: 2387619.png (148KB, 384x512px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 384x512px

>>7983553

>>7983586
>"Mass attracts mass" is certainly proven.

No it isn't. There is not one shred of empirical data proving that. Things fall, that's what we know for certain.

>"Gravity" is the word we use to describe the effect.

Newton's theory of gravity describes a very specific theory. It isn't open to interpretation. If you are describing falling, period, then use a better word for it, because in the English language gravity connotes Newton.

>You've lost me there, Francis.

Nice ad hominem. It makes you seem real clever. It is the same logic. People had "proof" God existed too. (Even if He exists, some of the purported miracles had to have been fraudulent, considering our understanding of physics.) Things obviously fall, just like we are obviously alive. Why this is the case is uncertain.

File: fedora22.jpg (43KB, 500x611px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x611px

>>7983614
>There is not one shred of empirical data proving that.

File: fedora m8.jpg (72KB, 540x515px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 540x515px

>>7983614
>Newton's theory of gravity
>2016

File: fedora100.jpg (230KB, 1200x1101px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x1101px

>>7983614
>Nice ad hominem

>>7983619
>>7983621
Hur hur, if I say it enough it will come true! Let me see some evidence (excluding the dubious gravity waves article that isn't a real academic study). Where is that home experiment I can try to test it myself? Where is that academic study proving it, even? There isn't one, get over it. It's a theory, and a theory with holes in it to boot.

File: fedorabig.png (703KB, 522x579px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 522x579px

>>7983614
>gravity connotes Newton.

File: fedoratip.jpg (31KB, 333x333px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 333x333px

>>7983634
>if I can't detect gravity waves in my living room that means they don't exist

File: fed.gif (1MB, 292x278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 292x278px

>>7983634
>The speed of light isn't 3*10^8m/s because I can't measure it myself

File: phone.jpg (42KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 540x960px

>>7983614
>Things fall, that's what we know for certain.
No, we can also observe gravity's effect on orbits.
And then there's this:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
And this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
And these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Gravitational_redshift_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Post-Newtonian_tests_of_gravity

>People had "proof" God existed too.
???
Are you conflating the existence of evidence for gravity with creationism?

>>7983634
>The Doppler effect doesn't exist because I can't observe changes in wavelength with the naked eye

File: lollllllll.jpg (52KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x462px

>>7983634
>Where is that academic study proving it, even?
>"no the one those guys at LIGO have been working on for 14 years doesn't count because I said so"

>>7983646
It isn't, necessarily. When has that ever been proven? When would that even be relevant in a real-life scenario?

>>7983642
It means it's a theory. It is obviously much easier to take an observable phenomenon, like things falling, and make a theory explaining it, than to create a theory from nothing that is later proven by reality. It never goes the other way around. No one has ever made a theory that leads to inventions. Science is deduction and inference, something Newton's theory is not. It is misleading to call it science, even; it isn't, it's a theory. Real science has empirical data.

>>7983637
You're just an idiot.

>>7983386
Confimed, OP drinks penis water.

>>7983659
There is no way to confirm it. Are you really just going to take someone's word for it without being able to see the evidence? And you're calling me the idiot?

>>7983650
Things don't need to be understood to work. Electricity was pragmatically implemented before we had a working theory of why it works. Science is empirical, not theoretical.

Your point does stand, though. Some things work that we can't perceive, like radio waves. The inability to perceive things simply makes it much harder to verify your theory is correct. Who has seen an electron? Who has seen gravity? They may exist, but without the ability to test for them, that's uncertain.

>>7983647
None of those studys can be confirmed by you or I. Studys can obviously be wrong, too. Smoking was healthy and eggs were unhealthy not too long ago. Are you saying that future studies never invalidate past ones?

>>7983665
prove that you exist otherwise, you are just a theory, real science has empirical data.

>>7983659
> if i post this pic i dont have to show any proof
lol

>>7983679
Things don't need to be understood, like I said. An animal doesn't need to understand physics in order to run. Scientific invention, more times than not, mimics the evolutionary process. A phenomenon is observed, and then engineers refine it into something useful and repeatable. The airplane is a prime example of empirical science. The Wright brothers had no clue why lift was created; they were just experimenting with different wings, like evolution would, and winnowing out the successful shapes from the unsuccessful.

>>7983686
>"I'll just keep arbitrarily discrediting every piece of evidence presented in this thread with untestable circumstances that would discredit them. haha that'll teach 'em"

File: A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.jpg (109KB, 1014x670px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1014x670px

Here's your proof, if you can't accept it, then it is your problem.

File: aJr4V8V.png (188KB, 534x710px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 534x710px

>>7983678
>None of those studys can be confirmed by you or I.
Did you even check out the links Opie?
The Cavendish experiment was done in 1797 with a homemade apparatus.
Most Anons from DIY could reproduce this experiment.
Besides, are you insinuating there's some giant, centuries-long conspiracy to hide the truth?

>>7983716
>Besides, are you insinuating there's some giant, centuries-long conspiracy to hide the truth?

No, more like centuries-long perpetuation of ignorance. I have a strange feeling our conception of reality will be obsolete 300 years from now. That was always the case in the past, and will probably continue to be the case in the future. The Royal Society that is the basis of our modern Enlightenment science was full of occultists, Newton included. He spent 10 years studying Kabbalah and trying to turn lead into gold. They aren't quite the flawless authority you are making them out to be when you view them in context.

>>7983694
Arbitrarily discrediting unproven information should be the norm, not a deviation. You are the kind of person who would've believed in miracles back in the Middle Ages, just because an authority figure told you they were real.

Real science is empirical. A gas is less dense and more voluminous than a liquid. That's 100% fact. Electrons and gravity are unobservable explanations to an observable phenomenon. Electricity works and things fall. Both electron theory and gravity theory could be disproven tomorrow and that would still be true, because electricity and things falling are empirical.

File: bait.jpg (137KB, 1171x540px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1171x540px

>>7983760
>unproven information

I feel bad if you aren't trolling

File: fedora47.jpg (43KB, 500x638px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x638px

>>7983760
>You are the kind of person who would've believed in miracles back in the Middle Ages, just because an authority figure told you they were real.

>>7983772
Look, I don't know if gravity theory is correct or not. That's not the point. The point is that 95% of gravity's existence is predicated on you trusting an authority figure. That is not science.

>>7983785
even fedoras are intellectually superior to people who believe in miracles like 8 year olds :^)

File: bam.gif (495KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 500x280px

>>7983760
I notice you still haven't read about the Cavendish Experiment.

>>7983785
I assume miracles didn't happen. Everything from my day-to-day experience tells me they probably are impossible. I will start believing in them when I have sufficient evidence.

>>7983790
>Einstein is an authority figure
>LIGO is an authority figure

Listen to yourself.

>>7983790
>The point is that 95% of gravity's existence is predicated on you trusting an authority figure.
People figured out that mass attracts mass using equipment like telescopes and torsion balances hundreds of years ago.
It's not like you're talking about the LHC.
The average modern person can reproduce all the early work on gravity themselves.
It's a little past science fair level stuff, but not much.

>>7983794
Yeah, I can't do that and write at the same time. I have never heard of it before, and would have to look on YouTube to see if people are replicating it. Once again, I'm not discounting gravity theory completely, just applying the scientific method.

As a side note, I thought the weights are too insignificant to test for gravity in such a manner? That's the common wisdom I've heard before.

>>7983804
>I have never heard of it before,

Opie, you spent FIVE HOURS claiming there's no evidence for gravity, but you didn't spend 5 MINUTES with Google to see if that was even right?

I do notice your grammar has gotten much better since the thread started.
What are/were you high on?

>pretends we can't observe light being bent around massive objects
>pretends gravitational waves haven't been detected
>claims that things are just "theories" if they can't be replicated in his living room
>Doesn't know what escape velocity is
>Thinks light has mass because gravity effects it


kek

File: 1458612398719.gif (964KB, 397x658px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 397x658px

>>7983804
>just applying the scientific method.
>Ignores the multiple references through out the thread referencing the expedition of Authur Eddington, that was one of the most monumental successes of the scientific method.

>>7983804
>I'm just applying the scientific method
Ignoring evidence, making zero effort to do research, and demonstrating conspiratorial paranoia are not the scientific method. You're either a troll or a schizoid ignoramus. Either way please fuck off.

I can observe the moons of Jupiter, just sitting there in orbit around it. That's at home observable evidence for gravity.

>>7983837
Nah bro Jupiter isn't in your living room therefore it doesn't exist and it's probably just a hologram put there 10 thousand years ago by NASA to hide the truth

>>7983814
I'm not OP. I started here: >>7983569 .

>Opie, you spent FIVE HOURS claiming there's no evidence for gravity, but you didn't spend 5 MINUTES with Google to see if that was even right?

If the Cavendish Experiment was accurate, wouldn't dust be attracted to me when I move around? Lighter mass being attracted to a heavier mass is clearly not observable in day-to-day life. (I am looking into the Cavendish Experiment as we speak, for your information.)

>>7983820
There has never been a study proving gravity. Gravitational waves are an article on the internet and a picture of something, not a scientific analysis. If I submitted something comparable for a theory of mine I would be laughed out of the room. It works from a position of authority, nowhere else.

>>7983825
Still theoretical.

>>7983827
>Ignoring evidence

There is no hard evidence. Like I said, if you think our conception of the universe is never going to change, you're delusional.

I don't care if it's true or not. It's a waste of time. Imagine studying something your whole life and then finding out one of the fundamental aspects of the theory you assumed was entirely correct, was false. Stay in reality, I say. Don't waste energy on things that very well may not be as you think they are. Engineering is vastly superior to theoretical science for this very reason.

>>7983865
>There is no hard evidence.
Anon, I listed several sources of evidence.
Most of these can be reproduced by YOU if only you want to put serious effort into it.

>>7983865
>Still theoretical.
Literally viewing a stars light being bent around a body of mass is theoretical? Oh my god you are deluded.

>Engineering is vastly superior to theoretical science
Too bad you will never be involved in either because you have the comprehension of my 10 year old brother.

>>7983876
They are still in dispute. Here is an article from someone doing just that:

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

>>7983883
>Literally viewing a stars light being bent around a body of mass is theoretical?

Oh, is that what that is? That's very nice. Can I see some proof?

This is the baitest troll thread ever

File: LIGO.jpg (300KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 2048x1152px

>>7983865
>Gravitational waves are an article on the internet and a picture of something, not a scientific analysis.
A 20+ year multibillion dollar project isn't a scientific analysis? Are you fucking serious buddy? LIGO isn't a "position of authority" 99.9% of the population had no clue what LIGO was or is before they discovered grav waves.

You are an utter fucking imbecile or a very good troll

File: cgRTOSs.jpg (84KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 800x520px

>>7983888
>They are still in dispute.
One dissenter does qualify as dispute within the scientific community.
Even this guy can only find one other critic of Cavendish, and that's from 1902!
He's also very critical of:
>GR
>Calculus
>QM
>ignoring astronomy's effect on electronics
(yes, he thinks tides have a significant effect on common electronics)
> etc
Meanwhile this guy also not only doubts the conventional wisdom of centuries of scientific work, he also thinks he can correct many of the scientific communities errors.

Clearly he (and you) inflate your sense of self worth by believing you're smarter than history's leading scientific minds.
And that's far more questionable than gravity's existence.

File: EinsteinRings.jpg (46KB, 525x350px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 525x350px

>>7983893
I've posted 4 photos so far of light being bent around mass. Here's 8 more.

>>7983909
p.s. He also thinks we're all stupid for not understanding that pi = 4
https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/pi/#more-1

>>7983903
They are in a position of authority by being the exclusive owners of that equipment alone.

>>7983909
>Meanwhile this guy also not only doubts the conventional wisdom of centuries of scientific work, he also thinks he can correct many of the scientific communities errors.
>Clearly he (and you) inflate your sense of self worth by believing you're smarter than history's leading scientific minds.
>And that's far more questionable than gravity's existence.

Questioning theories is not wrong. He may not have the answers, but many of the issues he points out are valid.

>>7983914
Still reading up on this guy.
He's also convinced the Boston Marathon bombing and Sandy Hook massacre were hoaxes.

File: DauOuvs.gif (1MB, 325x283px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 325x283px

>>7983922
>Questioning theories is not wrong.
Of course not.
In the actual scientific world, it's called "peer review", and scientific knowledge on gravity has been thoroughly peer-reviewed.
Mathis is a conspiracy theorist and egomaniac with no credibility, not a scientist.

>>7983923
>Some will say, no, the air pressure is balanced all around, which creates a zero sum, allowing motion with the tiniest force. But this is false. Air has a viscosity, a resistance, and it cannot balance like that, any more than the water can balance a force in that way. A force of motion in any medium must overcome the resistance of that medium, and air does not have a zero resistance any more than water does. To initialize motion, the force in any direction must be greater than the constant force of resistance. If the force is too small, the object simply will not move. Mathematically, this is just to say that the “drag equation” does not go to zero at a velocity of zero. To initialize motion always require a sufficiently large initial force, depending on the medium.

>What John Walker finds is that even with a separation of about 9”, same as Cavendish, and with much smaller masses, he is able to get a motion of the small weight all the way over to the large weight, achieving contact. Some will say this is because his hanging wire or string has no twisting tension, or a twisting tension much smaller than Cavendish’s, but his water brake provides that tension. He also has about the same air resistance Cavendish had, we will assume. But he has a much smaller rod length. Cavendish’s was 6 feet, remember. Walker’s is about one foot. This lessens his effect again, since he doesn’t have the leverage Cavendish had. Torque is force times length, remember; so less length, less torque.

I just stumbled on him. I'm not responsible for whatever he believes. The second paragraph, if true, is interesting, though. Why would you achieve the same effect with less weight?

>>7983938
>Likewise, if we have now entered the realm of forces of 10-10N, we must be a bit more rigorous with our analyses. Let us first return to Cavendish’s machine. Although he has a force 1000 times greater, he is still lacking the rigor required at his level of precision. We are told that his wooden bar was six feet long, and that his box was ten feet wide. According to my calculations, that puts the smaller balls only two feet from the walls. Those walls were two feet thick. Even though they were made of wood, a wall two feet thick provides a great deal of mass. It may be that those wooden walls of the box were backed up by brick walls of the shed, adding much more mass. How much mass does a wall 2 feet thick, ten feet tall and ten feet wide, provide? Without knowing the wood type and the construction type, it is impossible to say, but we are in the thousands of pounds. A brick wall one foot wide would double that mass, at least, although the brick wall would obviously be two or three feet farther away from our small lead balls. At any rate, we have absolutely huge masses at no great distances from our machine, a machine that is claiming to measure tiny gravitational attractions. I find this monumentally strange.

Another cogent point, I'd say.

File: megaman_captcha.jpg (40KB, 878x592px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 878x592px

>>7983888
Man, assholes like this guy always need to go all the way.
>Hey guys, I think this theory/experiment is wrong/misinterpreted.
>Wanna know what else is wrong? Everything.
Surprised he is neither a doctor nor an engineer.

>>7983938
>Why would you achieve the same effect with less weight?
This experiment has been reproduced thousands of times.
Somebody was bound to create an outlier result.
But if the original experiment was actually flawed, we would know far more by now.

>>7983951
He's addressed that in his article.

>>7983950
>Wanna know what else is wrong? Everything.

I don't necessarily disagree with most of that. I don't have the answers, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out no one does as of now.

>>7983946
>Boys also admits some shocking things about himself:

>"I have placed the apparatus in a long narrow vault under the private road between the museum and the Science Schools. This is not a good place for experiments of this kind, for when a cab passes overhead the trembling is so great that loose things visibly move: however, it is the only place at my disposal that is in any degree suitable. A large drain pipe filled with gravel and cement and covered by a slab of stone forms a fairly good table…"

>"During the observations there was an almost continuous tramp of art students above, producing a perceptible tremor, besides which two vehicles passed, and coals were twice shovelled in the coal cellar, which is separated from the vault in which the observations were made by only a four and a half inch brick wall. The result of all this was a nearly perpetual tremor, which produced a rapid oscillation of the scale on the cross-wire…."

Sounds like there are problems with this theory. . . There are many other things not accounted for as well, such as air temperature, that could be creating this effect.

>>7983865
>If the Cavendish Experiment was accurate, wouldn't dust be attracted to me when I move around?
Dust *is* attracted to your mass. It just that the attraction is incredibly weak, meaning that stronger influences (such as the attraction to the Earth and the movement air particles around the dust) completely overpower this attraction.
However, if you were drifting around in intergalactic space and released a small cloud of dust around you, the dust would indeed very gradually gravitate towards your space suit and would weakly stick to it.

>Lighter mass being attracted to a heavier mass is clearly not observable in day-to-day life.
"clearly not observable?"
Observe that your body has a lighter mass than that of the earth and that your body is always being pulled towards the earth. This is because the lighter mass of your body is attracted to the vastly heavier mass of the planet.

BTW, we should not be referring to mass in terms of "heavy" or "light", as those terms are relative to the strength of gravity. An object that is heavy on earth will be much lighter on the moon, even though the mass is the same. That's because the moon has less mass that Earth and thus has less gravitational pull, so the attraction is weaker and the object feels lighter.

>>7983955
>I don't have the answers, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out no one does as of now.
If you were talking about alchemists still failing to turn lead into gold, that would be one thing.
But modern science has spawned amazing technological achievements.
MRI's, computers, jets, etc.
Clearly we're not wrong about most scientific knowledge.

>>7983993
>But modern science has spawned amazing technological achievements.
>MRI's, computers, jets, etc.

Like I said, >>7983689 , those are empirical inventions. There was no theory used in any of those. Nothing has ever been invented using theory, as far as I know. Invention emulates the evolutionary process, by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.

>>7983992
>Observe that your body has a lighter mass than that of the earth and that your body is always being pulled towards the earth.

My body being pulled to the Earth is obviously true. What is causing it isn't as well understood as you would believe.

>>7984018
> What is causing it isn't as well understood as you would believe.
Speak for yourself brainlet

>>7984087
Yeah, you are very intelligent I'm sure.

>>7984123
I can comprehend the basic concepts of gravity and general relativity. At least I'm above you.

File: SEM-pollen.jpg (115KB, 788x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 788x600px

>>7984018
>There was no theory used in any of those.
fullretard.jpg

>Nothing has ever been invented using theory, as far as I know.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tunnelling+electron+microscope
Actually, EVERYFUCKINGTHING is invented in the framework of scientific knowledge, but the TEM in particular just wouldn't work at all unless certain very esoteric aspects of scientific knowledge were correct.

>Invention emulates the evolutionary process, by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.
No, that would result in a slow, steady advancement of technological progress over centuries and millennia.
Instead, we see invention advancing in relation to scientific advancement.

>>7984018
>My body being pulled to the Earth is obviously true. What is causing it isn't as well understood as you would believe.

Actually I'm well aware of humanity's lack of real understanding as to how gravity works (as in, *why* mass attracts mass). But it is obvious from hundreds of years of observation and experimentation showing that mass does indeed attract mass, and we call that observable effect gravity. Just because we don't understand why mass is attracted to mass doesn't mean we can't prove it happens.

Are you arguing all this because you have your own ideas on what gravity really is and what causes it? What are they?

>>7984018
>There was no theory used in any of those
Then why was a theorist responsible for the design of the solid state transistor?

>>7984183
>Instead, we see invention advancing in relation to scientific advancement.

No we don't. We see individual empirical breakthroughs leading to more breakthroughs. Electricity is a prime example of this. One big discovery can lead to many other inventions and discoveries. There is no need to understand why something works, as long as it works.

>>7984188
>Are you arguing all this because you have your own ideas on what gravity really is and what causes it? What are they?

No I don't. I am basically playing devil's advocate. I have no clue what is really happening, and I'd wager no one alive does, either.

>>7984212
>Lilienfeld's early career, at the University of Leipzig, saw him conduct important early work on electrical discharges in "vacuum", between metal electrodes, from about 1910 onwards.[2] His early passion was to clarify how this phenomenon changed as vacuum preparation techniques improved. More than any other scientist, he was responsible for the identification of (presently named) field electron emission as a separate physical effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld

Sounds like he was heavily involved in empirical research.

>>7983281
Einstein was wrong. You don't need space-bending concepts in order to explain light bending effects. The fact is that photons are not massless. Photons are only massless when their velocity is zero. But photons are in motion hence they are affected by the gravity from the sun.

>>7984244
>Einstein was wrong
>Photons have mass
Oooh I'd love to see all your research! Sadly your research is the same as the mass of a particle traveling faster than the speed of light, which is to say it's imaginary.

File: 1452163096525.png (129KB, 600x465px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 600x465px

>>7984018
>nothing has ever been invented using theory

Gee it's not like circuits and electricity were apart of theoretical physics only two hundred years ago. Hell Boltzmann killed himself because he wasn't sure the atom was real. Quantum theory gives you a scanner that you use at a super market. Holy fuck you are one dumb mother fucker.

>>7984234
>I am basically playing devil's advocate. I have no clue what is really happening, and I'd wager no one alive does, either.
And I would agree with you (for the most part). The scientific community has never claimed to actually understand what causes gravity, or how it could be linked with quantum mechanics. We can explain it as mass causing the warping of spacetime, but then why does that happen? How can we get real, experimental evidence of the warping of spacetime? All we can do is observe its effects.
I just want you to acknowledge that gravity exists; that it is the phenomenon of mass being attracted to mass. Because it seems that you are denying this obvious truth.

>>7984273
Nice assumptions. I clearly stated that photons AT REST have no mass, but photons in motion do.

>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

>>7984018
>Nothing has ever been invented using theory
Actually, if you were a real scientist, you would know that pretty much everything is invented using theory.

File: douche.jpg (21KB, 379x379px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 379x379px

>>7984234
>There is no need to understand why something works, as long as it works.
That works OK for stuff up to the early industrial revolution, but that's not how we got transistors, IC's, superconductors, RADAR, chemotherapy, the Apollo moon landings, post-it notes, ice beer or nanobots.

>I have no clue what is really happening, and I'd wager no one alive does, either.
As this Anon said, we don't have much understanding of gravity's underlying mechanism, but we do know (100%) that mass attracts mass.
There is NO serious doubt on this.
You're just being stubborn to serve you own selfish emotional need to feel superior to all of society.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
>Sounds like he was heavily involved in empirical research.
That's iffy.
I WOULD point out that he was obviously involved with the development of scientific theory AND relied on theory developed by others in his work, but it's moot, because he wasn't on the team that invented the transistor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#History
>Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent
(notice "Physicist"?)
>Physicist Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent
for a field-effect transistor (FET) in Canada in 1925, which was intended to be a solid-state replacement for the triode.[4][5] Lilienfeld also filed identical patents in the United States in...
>nor did his patents cite any specific examples of a working prototype.
>. Because the production of high-quality semiconductor materials was still decades away, Lilienfeld's solid-state amplifier ideas would not have found practical use in the 1920s and 1930s, even if such a device had been built.[9]
So he came up with the IDEA, based on his work in physics, but never actually built one.
You're just 100% wrong on this one, the technology is based entirely on theoretical physics, not trial and error "evolution".

>>7983213
OP since there is no home experiment I can conduct to prove you are not a faggot, then I must take that as the truth. This is just Occam right? Since you I can't disprove you not being a faggot then you must be a faggot!


And this is why failed science majors go to humanities.

>>7984018
Also, I have a feeling gravity is more "well understood" than you would believe. The only thing left to do with gravity is understand its transfer particle, if it has one, and understand the properties of dark matter. You could easily say "we don't really understand electromagnetism" because deep down at a fundamental level, there's no reason for charge to exist, but that doesn't mean we should scrap all our current research because there's a possibility that we're wrong about everything.

>>7984234
I work in research now, and it sounds like you don't have any understanding of how modern science works. We've gotten past trying to explain nature. We now *exclusively* use theory to come up with new things to research. I'm working with metamaterials right now, which wouldn't exist if theorists hadn't suggested people start looking into them. With metamaterials, along with basically all modern science, you absolutely have to understand why and how a process works before you can even begin developing new technologies. Now, sometimes, scientists come up with theories and use experiment to prove or disprove certain aspects of their theory, or to point them in the right direction, but it's impossible to produce an actual technology without understanding theory.

t: physicist

>>7984283
>photons
>at rest
hahahaha.

>>7984320
Yet another devastating rational argument from your side. I declare my defeat by your irrefutable argumentation.

>>7984279
>that it is the phenomenon of mass being attracted to mass. Because it seems that you are denying this obvious truth.

I will agree to no such thing. I don't know why things fall here on Earth.

>>7984277
>Quantum theory gives you a scanner that you use at a super market.

Yeah, I'm sure you can't invent a scanner using trial and error.

>>7984287
No it hasn't, at least not using theory that explains why and how something occurs. The theory that is used is derived from trial and error and observation. It is objective because it's based in reality, unlike Newton's gravity theory which can't be tested effectively.

>>7984288
>You're just 100% wrong on this one, the technology is based entirely on theoretical physics, not trial and error "evolution".

You're wrong. None of it is based on theoretical physics. There is nothing around you, including your computer, that had been invented using theoretical physics. Someone might get ideas from an existing phenomenon, test it, and refine it, but that's not theoretical physics. Theoretical physics IMPLIES IN ITS NAME that it can't be confirmed.

>>7984299
>You could easily say "we don't really understand electromagnetism" because deep down at a fundamental level, there's no reason for charge to exist, but that doesn't mean we should scrap all our current research because there's a possibility that we're wrong about everything.

We don't need to understand it. It works; that's good enough.

>We now *exclusively* use theory to come up with new things to research.

No you don't. You observe a phenomenon, some idea man comes along and figures out an ingenious way it could be implemented, and you engineer and refine it. That is how invention has always worked. No theory explaining why is needed, and none are usually given.

File: yukfhjdfhkfhgjftyr6758.gif (2MB, 230x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x175px

>>7984322
>Photons
>at rest

>>7984322
Photons are never at rest

>>7984326
>>7984327
>Committing red herring in real life.
On topic: Gravitational lensing happens due to the relativistic mass of photons interacting with the mass of the sun. There is no need for space curvature.

>>7984322
>>7984283
>>7984244
>When he doesn't understand elementary physics
Effective mass =/= mass, dumbass. Stop reading science docs thinking you understand them.

>>7983270
Also, to answer how does mass curve time, you could just go with the space-time continuum works. Oooor, you could use the experimental results that say gravitational time dilation is real. If it wasn't, your GPS would put you miles away from where you really were.

File: goodfellas-tommy.jpg (94KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x576px

>>7984333
>mass of photons interacting with the mass of the sun.
You really are a funny guy

>>7984334
>>7984336
Yet again nobody logically refuted my claim.

>>7984325
>No you don't
I'm sorry, do you work in my lab now? We used theory to come up with an ENP metamaterial. Metamaterial means it doesn't exist in nature. Nobody's going to just "figure it out". As for the practical applications, we used theory to create a material that had specific properties we wanted. Now we are testing it to see how we can use those properties to our advantage. Just saying "no theory is needed" or "none are usually given" shows me that you probably haven't ever worked in a real lab. Go back to pop/sci/

File: 1458535672624s.jpg (3KB, 125x113px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x113px

>>7984338
Nobody needs to, I can claim Light is actually miniature dildos being shot out of your moms ass, and you can't disprove it so I must be correct right?

Anybody still falling for your b8 is retarded

>>7984338
I did. I just told you that photons don't have mass, they have effective mass derived from their energy. Or do I have to explain E+M, particle physics, and elementary force interactions to you?

>>7984347
>>7984352
Thanks for the (you)'s ;^)

>>7984338
That doesn't make any sense. How do their masses interact ?

>>7984345
If what you are saying is true, this would be the first time in history that something was created out of pure theory. Also, how do you know the material is unique? Have you actually seen the properties with your own eyes?

>>7984353
>I was just pretending to be retarded
You may find this article strikingly familiar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer

>>7984353
Just to be absolutely clear, a photon is the quantum of an electromagnetic wave. It must always be moving, and its velocity in a vacuum as measured by any observer is always c. So photons really, really can't ever be at rest.

File: ckLUM6Z.jpg (22KB, 511x218px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 511x218px

>>7984325
>Theoretical physics IMPLIES IN ITS NAME that it can't be confirmed.
Anon, I'm not a real doctor, but at least I can help you with this point.
To a layman, in everyday conversation, "theory" means "a wacky idea, supported by one person's need to feel like they understand something".
In science, however, a "theory" is an idea that is supported by the scientific community at large because it survives rigorous testing AND peer review, and ALSO fits well with other scientific knowledge.
By definition, it MUST be confirmed by experimental evidence.
In science, there's NO SUCH THING as "*just* a theory".
And all modern technology is based on scientific knowledge you hand-wave away because you confuse "scientific theory" with "just some bullshit they *want* you to believe".

>>7984368
That guy ( >>7984353 ) was a new IP in the thread, FYI

File: 2vah-jay-jays.jpg (41KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x360px

>>7984360
>If what you are saying is true, this would be the first time in history that something was created out of pure theory.
>yesterday I'd never heard of metamaterials, the Cavendish experiment, or gravitational lensing,..
>but I'm still convinced that anything I've never heard of just doesn't exist

>>7984441
>>yesterday I'd never heard of metamaterials, the Cavendish experiment, or gravitational lensing,..

None of those have created anything. It's all intellectual babble.

>>7984434
>In science, there's NO SUCH THING as "*just* a theory".

Except there clearly is. Newton's theory was adhered to even before the advent of space programs. It still isn't anywhere near certain, but back then it was far less so.

>survives rigorous testing AND peer review, and ALSO fits well with other scientific knowledge

Again, that's just not true. Electron theory is a great example.

>this whole thread
10/10 master troll work

wew lad

Everyone stop bickering and recognize the master trollsmith

File: 1433043641658.jpg (110KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1280x720px

>>7983888

>citing milesmathis unironically

W E W
E
W

http://milesmathis.com/expon.html

This is just 1 of way too many 'articles' he's written. Read by your own discretion, I warned you here.

>>7984360
You seem to be utterly fascinated that anyone can create things from theory. I know the material is unique because we literally have to evaporate metal to even create it. We distribute nanometer thick bilayers of materials that would never naturally form like that. I have in fact seen it with my own eyes, I literally work with it every day.

>>7983647
I can't take sad mother-related things.

>>7984473
Dude, newton was 100% wrong about gravity

>>7984473
>Newton's theory

Hypothesis non fingo, faggot.

>>7983344
We can already probe that light has mass using Einsteins E=mc^2 and the energy of a photon.

File: 1440770374084.png (21KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 420x420px

ITT: brainlets can't distinguish between an observation and a theory

OP is clearly right. This is why we need more philosophy in science.

>>7985336
Lol back to /his/. Silly philosopher confusing science with metaphysical truth

>>7983270
Read up on closed timeline curves.

I'm too tired to explain it to you, all this gravity is saggy my man tits and double chin.

>>7984360
>first time in history
MRI
CAT
PET
Radios
Nuclear weapons
Nuclear power plants
Tunneling electron microscopes
Most modern medications
These thing all came from theoretical calculations.

File: 1456947242706.png (19KB, 592x492px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 592x492px

>mfw this thread.

Never change /sci/