Gravity doesn't exist.

I'm going to need a better explanation than that. I'm not a big fan of string theory, either.
 
Blaine said:
I'm going to need a better explanation than that. I'm not a big fan of string theory, either.
Click to expand...

OK, here you are.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
Yeah, I read that..... Uhhhhhhh, ok, maybe. I am have been trying to keep up with science advancement, but I gotta tell ya, advanced theoretical physics has gotten real weird lately. I dig the "Holographic" universe model, but give me a break.
 
String theory is mental mathturbation. The point of physics is to produce experimentally verifiable theories that lead to practical engineering possibilities. String theory can't even be experimentally tested, so no one can possibly prove whether it is wrong or right. Nothing practical or engineerable has come from string theory in 40 years. It does give a lot of academics lucrative careers though.
 
Ahhh, back to the future and the Laws of Thermodynamics...

Although, if he says gravity doesn't exist, what does that mean about the other 3 forces?

String theory may be a bit of a uhh, stretch, though Brian Greene's Elegant Universe was definitely interesting.

As for " The point of physics" this is, after all, Theoretical Physics, and the proof is in the math.

But one thing theories from Einstein's Special Relativity to String Theory to this new one have in common is the attempt to explain everything in one theory, from a unified field theory to a "theory of everything."

Food for thought, to say the least...
 
the appeal of string theory reminds me of the god theory; neither proveable nor really disproveable. the holographic argument and this thought on gravity are very similar in that respect.
 
There's no such thing as a 'God Theory' in that there's no experimental methodology for testing to establish the existence or non-existence of a God.

On the other hand, there is a non-trivial experimental test for at least some aspects of string theory: high-energy particle (W Boson) scattering of the sort that can be performed with CERN's LHC. Earlier colliders didn't reach the energy levels required to perform the test; advances in equipment mean advances in investigational technique.

Please don't conflate religious concepts with scientific ones. The fact that high-energy physics sometimes comes off sounding all mystical mumbo-jumbo-y doesn't mean that's what it is...

All of the forces that we talk about are just categorical labels based upon how we experience and detect them - remember when light, magnetism and electricity were all 'separate forces' (well, okay, none of us are that old but until Maxwell came along that was the prevailing wisdom - and it was wrong). There's no reason for discomfort with a proposed model that categorizes and describes those forces differently.
 
Sad Max said:
There's no such thing as a 'God Theory' in that there's no experimental methodology for testing the existence or non-existence of a God.

On the other hand, there is a non-trivial experimental test for at least some aspects of string theory: high-energy particle (W Boson) scattering of the sort that can be performed with CERN's LHC. Earlier colliders didn't reach the energy levels required to perform the test; advances in equipment mean advances in investigational technique.

Please don't conflate religious concepts with scientific ones.
Click to expand...

by 'god theory' i meant religion in general you can believe either way, but you wont know until you are dead. i have a minor in particle physics, i wont buy into string theory until its got a little more cohesion and a little more collected data. its interesting, but pretending to understand it, for the layperson, is really a moot point unless you understand contrasting theories and other relevant theories, such as m-string etc. ive read a lot on the subject, but i dont feel confident to say much about it because its still rather undeveloped.

until the boson and other particles are proven, and especially until there is a LOT of math and data on why gravity does not exist, i'll remain skeptical.

personally, i feel all our theories are incomplete and flawed, and chances are, like in times past, our entire concept of physics is probably dead wrong. we can only analyze, only obtain so much data, and really only comprehend a tiny bit of what we are undertaking.

one man contesting gravity with little backing is not really that impressive. at the same time, in the same basic argument, like god, the higgs boson cannot really be proven or disproven without either finding some hard evidence, or a total lack of evidence over a VERY long period of time.
 
by 'god theory' i meant religion in general you can believe either way, but you wont know until you are dead. i have a minor in particle physics, i wont buy into string theory until its got a little more cohesion and a little more collected data. its interesting, but pretending to understand it, for the layperson, is really a moot point unless you understand contrasting theories and other relevant theories, such as m-string etc. ive read a lot on the subject, but i dont feel confident to say much about it because its still rather undeveloped.

until the boson and other particles are proven, and especially until there is a LOT of math and data on why gravity does not exist, i'll remain skeptical.

personally, i feel all our theories are incomplete and flawed, and chances are, like in times past, our entire concept of physics is probably dead wrong. we can only analyze, only obtain so much data, and really only comprehend a tiny bit of what we are undertaking.

one man contesting gravity with little backing is not really that impressive. at the same time, in the same basic argument, like god, the higgs boson cannot really be proven or disproven without either finding some hard evidence, or a total lack of evidence over a VERY long period of time.
Click to expand...
Sure, of course our theories are incomplete and flawed. That's part of what makes it fun.

I don't understand, though, why you want to keep dragging the 'god' business into it. It's irrelevant to a conversation about scientific investigation. At best, it's defeatist.

Comparing the search for the Higgs boson to debates about a 'god' impresses me as a denigration of science. Are you suggesting that a field in which many major hypotheses have been proven out by real-world experimentation is comparable to one in which there isn't even such a thing as a testable hypothesis?
 
arguably both could be somewhat correct, if gravity is actually entropic and related to thermodynamics, gravity is still technically the effect and how we measure that difference.

so in effect that would be like saying that the 'yard' does not exist because it is technically an expression relative to all the other variables related to distance including density, proximity, and whether or not reality is 2D/holographic or 3D.
 
Don't forget the 'yard's' dependence upon the frame of reference within which it and the person measuring it exist...

...or who is responsible for mowing it.

Either way.

Sure, that seems to be a common pattern: Kepler incorporated Brahe, Newton incorporated Kepler, Einstein incorporated Newton and - to varying degrees of professional satisfaction - Hawking incorporates Einstein. So it goes.
 
Sad Max said:
Sure, of course our theories are incomplete and flawed. That's part of what makes it fun.

I don't understand, though why you want to keep dragging the 'god' business into it. It's irrelevant to a conversation about scientific investigation. At best, it's defeatist.
Click to expand...

i was just explaining my first use of the analogy. that basically many things that cant be proven also cannot be disproven. im not religious at all, but nearly everyone on this planet has a concept of religion in some way shape or form, so it was an analogy aimed at universal understanding. (i just realized what a grand mistake that was, my mind flashing back to every history class and anything ive read on people interacting with different beliefs...)

dark matter, for instance, is just as relevant in that way, if you prefer. space-time vs gravity vs thermodynamics would be an incredibly difficult way to explain the entropic argument for 'gravity'. multiverses and sympathetic particles, parallel dimensions and alternate dimensions. where the heck photons go at certain times. i thoroughly encourage and love to see alternate ideas, but i still believe we are in our infancy of understanding. we have a decent grip of WHAT happens in a given situation, but really little on the WHY and HOW; realistically we dont even know all the actors and variables, so we come up with educated guesses and theoretical particles.

motion to change the title of this thread to 'Gravity discontinued'
 
Except that physicists persist in devising tests for hypotheses that were previously accepted as 'un-testable.'

Whereas the whole god-business remains, has remained and will remain untestable, at least, if we define 'god' according to any of the more popular fan-clubs presently in operation.

Do you see why the very mention of the two as if they're comparable is objectionable? Of course I agree that what people work with in the realm of physics consists of models and theories, but those intellectual instruments are fundamentally incompatible with the kind of thinking that covers concepts regarding gods.
 
Batutta said:
Gravity doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Does so.

Toon-Looneytunes-WileYCoyote-Roadrunner-GravityLessons.jpg
 
...unless it's a conspiracy and they just want to keep all those tasty crunchy delicious Higgs bosons for themselves...
 
Sad Max said:
Except that physicists persist in devising tests for hypotheses that were previously accepted as 'un-testable.'

Whereas the whole god-business remains, has remained and will remain untestable, at least, if we define 'god' according to any of the more popular fan-clubs presently in operation.

Do you see why the very mention of the two as if they're comparable, is objectionable?
Click to expand...

yes i do, perhaps my analogy was either misunderstood or incorrect. regarding the scientific approaches, again we are merely reaching out to prove one particle that can be in multiple places at the same time, that should theoretically increase the odds of finding the higgs-boson particle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top