Gravity, when the feeling's gone and you can't go on, it's gravity
- Thread starter RudeCurve
- Start date
Well, in modern Physics nomenclature, gravity is termed a "fundamental interaction between bodies that exerts a force on said bodies." It is not, per say, a force in and of itself.
For practical purposes, yes. There is a technical difference that is tied into the details of the various theories for how gravity works (shall we dive into relativity or gravity waves now?
), but for the purposes of this Physics 101 thread on perpetual motion and free energy it's essentially moot.Well for the purpose of this 101 thread, it needs to be said that as of today, noone really knows how gravitational force (or however you call it) works or even what it is. Same goes for electricity, magnetism etc. etc. Go figure. So talking about "hurting the scientific basics" is a moot argument anyway, since the very basics of our science is simply a bunch of weak models barely good enough to correlate with some of the observations made. For example the relativistic theory and quantum mechanics actually deny each other - so are they both invalid? Is one of them right and if, which? And on and on...
That would be a totally different thread. If you create it, invite Chalnoth. He knows way more about unification physics.
No, it's not a force. ASK ANY PHYSICIST. Or open up a modern textbook for god's sakes."Gravity is not a force"?
They taught general relativity in elementary school in Jugoslavia?
Anyway, your teacher sucked then, because gravity isn't a force.
If it would be a force it would have to be powered by something, as forces expend energy. Where would this energy be coming from and where would it go?
No such energy has ever been detected. Case closed.
No YOU aren't getting it. You can at least read the quote from the Wiki page I linked can't you? Fuckssake...To put it short: YOU are not getting it
BUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
LOL IRONY!
MrGaribaldi
Regular
Might I suggest a little time at Khan Academy taking a closer look at the physics, and specifically the gravity and energy conservation, videos?
As for _xxx_s comment about gravity being a force, could it be different terms used in different languages? (Don't know any physics in German, so can't tell)
As for _xxx_s comment about gravity being a force, could it be different terms used in different languages? (Don't know any physics in German, so can't tell)
For clarity, are we speaking about virtual particles serving as a means of interaction? Even with those, there would be no contribution of energy to the system. Such interactions have a net contribution of zero.
Are the planets expending energy in order to escape?
Garibaldi: not a language problem, I think that some people just don't differ between universal gravitation and Earth's gravity.
Stupid semantics games are totally meaningless. The classification COMES from physicists who discovered all this stuff decades and centuries ago, you can find it in pretty much all of the pre-AGW literature (back then when science was not prostitution yet).
If you doubt that there is a gravitational force, try jumping off a cliff and see for yourself. Gosh, just how stupid must one be to even discuss this point?
Relativity came in the secondary. In the primary only the basics were touched, among other things the four elementary forces. I know it's hard to imagine that for someone used to the dumbed-down US educational standards (or ideological brainwashing instead of science in the european version).
And regardless of that you'll find that description in heaps and loads of physics books through last 100 years or so. Not that the point is important at all, I'm just pointing out that stupid semantics games are useless and counterproductive, as always.
Stupid semantics games are totally meaningless. The classification COMES from physicists who discovered all this stuff decades and centuries ago, you can find it in pretty much all of the pre-AGW literature (back then when science was not prostitution yet).
If you doubt that there is a gravitational force, try jumping off a cliff and see for yourself. Gosh, just how stupid must one be to even discuss this point?
Relativity came in the secondary. In the primary only the basics were touched, among other things the four elementary forces. I know it's hard to imagine that for someone used to the dumbed-down US educational standards (or ideological brainwashing instead of science in the european version).
And regardless of that you'll find that description in heaps and loads of physics books through last 100 years or so. Not that the point is important at all, I'm just pointing out that stupid semantics games are useless and counterproductive, as always.
No, physicists today agree that gravitation is NOT a force. Fucking amazing you just keep parroting the same debunked statement.
LOL, you managed to bring up your stupid AGW obsession in yet another thread...
Newtonian physics defined gravitation as a force. However that concept is now obsolete, as it does not account for relativistic effects.
I was thinking the same with regards to your dumb ass.
There's no gravitational FORCE. There's gravitational ATTRACTION, where bodies gravitate towards one another through warping of space-time. Or are you now going to start disputing Einstein as well?
So again, hopefully for the last time, t's not a fucking force, alright?
Fundamental interactions, actually. They're not FORCES either. How could they be, when they are described as functioning through the exchange of subatomic particles?
Buhhaha?
Where am I living again, please tell me?
General relativity isn't even 100 years old yet.
The one playing the semantics game is you my friend, and why I can only speculate, but it must be because you're compelled through some form of mental illness to take up contrary positions to reason, like you've been displaying in your roughly 15 different global warming conspiracy threads (including threads on other topics that you derailed into GW conspiracy madhattery).
rendezvous
Regular
Just because it doesn't account for relativistic effects doesn't mean that it is obsolete. It is still usable to solve a lot of real world problems with good enough accuracy.
The unit described in the beginning of the thread with supposed accelerated generation can be sufficiently modeled with classical physics. There is no need for any fancy schmancy relativity.
Another problem brought up in this thread is the planets rotations around the sun which can be modeled with Newtonian physics to a high degree (yes, there are some effects can't be explained with Newtonian physics).
Go read the definition of "debunk". Setting your own definition for something is something entirely different.
No, I just pointed out at which point the science ceased being science and became prostitution.
There's no gravitational FORCE. There's gravitational ATTRACTION, where bodies gravitate towards one another through warping of space-time. Or are you now going to start disputing Einstein as well?
And did you ever ask yourself WHAT makes bodies attract each other? Please elaborate.
I'll dispute whoever I will, by the way. Noone was ever 100% "right" and even Einstein had no clue how the gravitation works, just like noone has any clue even today.
It is not a "fucking" force, it is just a force.
Sweden if I remember correctly, thus also mentioned above. THE brainwashing centre of "new" Europe.
And here we go again with "you don't share my stupid opinion, so you are crazy". Doesn't that stupid childish reasoning ever get boring?
If you want to seriously discuss this and end the argument, please enlighten me about WHAT force produces gravitation/attraction? How does it work? What's the cause?
As long as you can't answer this plausibly and scientifically, just shut your mouth and move on with your senseless discussion, without involving me please.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
"You stupid man!"
There are fairies pushing these bodies, can't you see them?!
Repeat, fairies, not forces.
Question: If I drop a body 1m from the ground, shall it have increased its kinetic energy? Why? What caused it to accelerate to the ground?
Or it just "warped" the space
?Still, for me this is semantics.
Interaction, not force...
Hopefully soon enough in CERN, we'll have prove that there is neither Higgs nor dark energy
PS: I bet RudeCurve is LOL-ing .
For a guy that can't even get basic Work and Force defintions you sure have balls to rewrite physics. Repulsion and Attraction are both forces.Good question. Stuff stay together because of the attraction of the atoms/molecules but where does the energy to keep the atoms/molecules together come from? Very good question indeed.
"Gravity is not a force"?
Strange, I learned in the very first physics course back in the elementary school that universal gravitation is one of the four elementary forces.
www.cpo.com/tn/downloads/04_1 four elementary forces.pdf
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858451.html
To put it short: YOU are not getting it
A friendly advice: hang your head in shame and avoid any scientific discussions in the future. You're SO not qualified.
Hehe..Thank You for bringing some sanity and humor into this thread. :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Well according to your erroneous understanding of basic physics Work = Force...which means your definition of what ISN'T a force should be taken with a grain of salt.:smile:
I like your reasoning behind why a Xbox Slim can't be made using the existing docking HDD...
I like your reasoning behind why a Xbox Slim can't be made using the existing docking HDD...
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
