Random Thought Thread

[Richard338]

Is gravity an actual law of science or widely accepted theory?

https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics/Gravitational-theory-and-other-aspects-of-physical-theory

Have there been experiments that can reproduce gravitational pull of an object?
it would be awesome to find out that there are...

There are experiments that can explore it in various ways. The basics are well established. Like other areas of physics there are models with different levels of sophistication. You should read about gravity waves, these are measured through incredibly sensitive and massive instruments.

 

[Casinostocks]

I think someone has been doing that very experiment on my balls

You mean like microcephaly but for the nether regions? I believe that the medical term for such defect is infantballssyndrome!

 

[bluemax_1]

I liken this 'belief' in a flat earth to religion, to me it's the same kind of thing. Which is one of the reasons why no amount of evidence or thoughtful argument will change the believer's mind. The bias toward maintaining belief is simply too strong.

My skepticism has always been focused on belief, while others' skepticism may be focused on theory. I prefer theory because it can and should be dynamic, as new evidence presents itself. I don't have to hold true to a set of concepts and can reject obsolete theories and I find freedom in that mode of being.

As opposed to belief, which is static and unchangeable. Where integrity is based upon clinging as tightly as possible to whatever precepts a particular belief demands.

I think that's probably the oldest of humankind's dichotomies and no argument on the internet will ever change anyone's mind. Those arguments only serve to reinforce whatever confirmation bias most individuals seek out and work to maintain.

Of course, none of you should give a shit about my opinion on the subject since my opinion is as meaningless as anyone else who isn't in a position of influence. It's all just conversation.

Imo.

One of favorite quotes is from Floyd Toole;
"In science, contradicting evidence makes one question the theory. In religion, contradicting evidence makes one question the evidence".

Not specifically about religion, per se, but about beliefs vs theories. It seems more common nowadays, for people to arrive at a belief based on arbitrary points/assumptions, and once they do so, they will pointedly ignore and reject any/everything that doesn't confirm/agree with that belief/position.

Pretty much an exercise in futility debating anything with those mentalities, because they will ignore any information/data/proof that you provide, and keep switching between, "Well, what about...", and eventually circle back to the points you've already contested and disproved (because their mind rejected/ignored whatever contradicted their beliefs, so they simply refuse to consider any info that didn't fit, and conveniently 'forgot' that you've already covered it).

Another favorite;
"You cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into".

 

[Nathan the Machinist]

Gravity is a consequence of mass. But an interesting question that has been raised is what is mass? Why do some things have mass and others do not.

Modern-day physics is looking at subatomic particles and in particularly the higgs bosom trying to understand where matter gets its mass. This is one of the main purposes of these high energy super colliders that break atoms down into quarks and gluons and other subatomic particle soup. Because at least one of these particles is responsible for matter having mass. There are aspects that are currently unanswered questions.

 

[Nathan the Machinist]

Gravity, at a certain level, is not perfectly understood. It is the weakest of the main "forces". The standard Newtonian physics model is fairly well perfect and can calculate and predict things like orbits and planetary body formation pretty much perfectly. But on a quantum mechanical and relativistic level gravity is not perfectly understood. For example, strange things happen to the math in a black hole singularity and in other extreme environments where some of the math breaks down.

One area where there is some contention about the validity of the Newtonian gravity models is in the behavior of very large scale objects like galaxies. There are discrepancies between the behavior of the distribution of visible matter in a galaxy and the theory which requires the existence of "dark matter" to explain our observations. Nobody knows what dark matter is and we have never been able to directly observe it despite some very elaborate experiments to do so. Some people think that dark matter does not exist and our understanding of gravity at galactic scales may be incomplete.

But, on the scales that people are able to interact (meaning not galactic or quantum) the behavior of gravity is very well understood outside of extreme circumstances such as black holes. This is how we are able to predict things like eclipses way far out into the distant future. Because the motion of our solar system can be described with gravity with great precision. It is a perfected instrument for these kinds of scales.

 

[bluemax_1]

I will be able to tell my children that once upon a time, a long time ago, there was moderation in politics and the two sides could see one another's points of view and even if they disagreed over something they could at least see the other person's perspective and compromises could be made which, overall, worked out to the betterment of both sides.

... those were days

Sort of side related topic:

In middle and high school, I wound up on the school's debate team. I'd had lots of practice with my dad (who was about as hardheaded and stubborn as they came ).

I developed a particularly ruthless style for winning debates, basically trapping an opponent in their position, locking them in place so they couldn't try to weasel out with the, "Well, I actually meant...", then proceeding to absolutely demolish and obliterate their position, point by point, in essence, browbeating them with information and data.

It wasn't a particularly tactful strategy. It was targeted at destroying and humiliating an opponent, and make them look dumb. It won, often, but it was never designed to make friends,... just to make someone seem unintelligent and ill informed in front of the judges/viewers.

It was a revelation to realize that there was another way, after seeing skilled speakers/debaters, who have the ability and technique to bring 'opponents' around to their point of view. A style that made no enemies. I regret not focusing on developing those skills when I learned of them.

I try, sometimes, but my lack of patience tends to wind up with me going back to what I'm used to.

 

[bluemax_1]

Gravity is a consequence of mass. But an interesting question that has been raised is what is mass? Why do some things have mass and others do not.

Modern-day physics is looking at subatomic particles and in particularly the higgs bosom trying to understand where matter gets its mass. This is one of the main purposes of these high energy super colliders that break atoms down into quarks and gluons and other subatomic particle soup. Because at least one of these particles is responsible for matter having mass. There are aspects that are currently unanswered questions.

I like bosoms with some mass...

 

[Richard338]

Sort of side related topic:

In middle and high school, I wound up on the school's debate team. I'd had lots of practice with my dad (who was about as hardheaded and stubborn as they came ).

I developed a particularly ruthless style for winning debates, basically trapping an opponent in their position, locking them in place so they couldn't try to weasel out with the, "Well, I actually meant...", then proceeding to absolutely demolish and obliterate their position, point by point, in essence, browbeating them with information and data.

It wasn't a particularly tactful strategy. It was targeted at destroying and humiliating an opponent, and make them look dumb. It won, often, but it was never designed to make friends,... just to make someone seem unintelligent and ill informed in front of the judges/viewers.

It was a revelation to realize that there was another way, after seeing skilled speakers/debaters, who have the ability and technique to bring 'opponents' around to their point of view. A style that made no enemies. I regret not focusing on developing those skills when I learned of them.

I try, sometimes, but my lack of patience tends to wind up with me going back to what I'm used to.

I use a different strategy..."yes Dear".

 

[benchrest308]

sgt1372 I would have to disagree. I believe discussion of these taboo subjects are paramount to further progress. If we all keep to our collective bubbles, our tribes, then we continue the trend of non-acceptance of other thought or believe due to the confirmation bias our own groups give us.

From my personal experience, 95% of people I have had these conversations with have not only remained civil, but also provoked further investigation of my own beliefs. If one can show they can conceed to a point based on its merit, the other individual figuratively "lights up" at the acceptance.

I really enjoy talking politics and religion as there is no right answer. So long as one can understand both individual beliefs are incorrect fundamentally, then a good discussion is bound to follow.

 

[sgt1372]

Yesterday for the very first time, I noticed this new phenomenon "shrinkflation" first hand and it really disturbed me! The loaf like creamy goat cheese at Trader Joes had shrank and I about lost my sh*t. Don't 'eff around with Matty's goat cheese MoFos!

1st time?

This has been going on for yrs w/lots of different products.

My most recent recollection is Costco's in the reduction in the amount of of TP in a roll. They fluffed up the roll w/air 2 make it look the same size but there's less TP per sq in a roll nonetheless.

 

[Casinostocks]

1st time?

This has been going on for yrs w/lots of different products.

My most recent recollection is Costco's in the reduction amunt of of TP in a roll. They fluffed up the roll 2 make it look the same size but there's less nonetheless.

Yes, I've aware that it has been going on for a while for genuinely it was the first time that it hit me right there in the face! I am sure that in the past few months I had bought quite a few items while blissfully ignorant as to the size, mass and gravity of what I had spent $ on

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

Okokok. so please bear with me here.

Why isn't there a gravitational force applied to I individual molecules of our atmosphere from other individual molecules in our atmosphere?

That's what gravity is right? Things being attracted to each other and making a bigger thing?

if gas molecules are constantly bouncing in to each other, shouldn't that cause gravity to take effect?

I guess I just dont understand.

Why aren't we all along with everything on the earth, pulled into a perfect sphere right now?

What ''stops'' air molecules from being sucked to the ground via gravity?

And why, when I ride my gravitron, do I stick to the walls and not to the floor?

I really do feel pretty dumb right now guys. no joke. this is all above my pay grade.

 

[bluemax_1]

Okokok. so please bear with me here.

Why isn't there a gravitational force applied to I individual molecules of our atmosphere from other individual molecules in our atmosphere?

That's what gravity is right? Things being attracted to each other and making a bigger thing?

if gas molecules are constantly bouncing in to each other, shouldn't that cause gravity to take effect?

I guess I just dont understand.

Why aren't we all along with everything on the earth, pulled into a perfect sphere right now?

What ''stops'' air molecules from being sucked to the ground via gravity?

And why, when I ride my gravitron, do I stick to the walls and not to the floor?

I really do feel pretty dumb right now guys. no joke. this is all above my pay grade.

In a nutshell, the relative force produced by gravity is a lot weaker than most of the other forces involved, and is directly proportional to its mass (and inversely proportional to the square of the radius from the center of mass, which is why Black Holes have a gravitational pull so strong, that even light can't escape it. They're incredibly dense masses in a relatively very small space).

Eg. Jupiter has a surface gravity of ~2.4x Earth's surface gravity. If Jupiter were composed of a denser substance (instead of a high gas density), it would have an even higher gravitational pull at the surface. Likewise, the moon has about 1/6th Earth's surface gravity, due to being much lower in mass.

While a single molecule of a gas does have a gravitational attraction to another gas molecule, because the mass is so low, the gravitational force is infinitesimal compared to the movement of the molecule and the ither forces governing its interactions.

The thing is, air molecules ARE sucked down by gravity. So is water. That's why both air pressure and water pressure increase the deeper/closer you get to the center of the Earth's mass. Gravity is pulling the molecules down towards the Earth's center, but at some point, as the molecules get more densely packed, the force of gravity is much smaller than the interactions between the molecules colliding with each other.

 

[Richard338]

Okokok. so please bear with me here.

Why isn't there a gravitational force applied to I individual molecules of our atmosphere from other individual molecules in our atmosphere?

That's what gravity is right? Things being attracted to each other and making a bigger thing?

if gas molecules are constantly bouncing in to each other, shouldn't that cause gravity to take effect?

I guess I just dont understand.

Why aren't we all along with everything on the earth, pulled into a perfect sphere right now?

What ''stops'' air molecules from being sucked to the ground via gravity?

And why, when I ride my gravitron, do I stick to the walls and not to the floor?

I really do feel pretty dumb right now guys. no joke. this is all above my pay grade.

Gravity is a weak force. If it was much stronger then you would see some of that stuff. The molecules do attract each other that way, but much more weakly than via other forces through which they interact. The available energy means that gas molecules are mostly individuals although we do see dimers and trimers etc as they group together.

 

[trevitrace]

So much for a little light reading on my lunch break.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

While a single molecule of a gas does have a gravitational attraction to another gas molecule, because the mass is so low, the gravitational force is infinitesimal compared to the movement of the molecule and the ither forces governing its interactions.

so now big would two things need to be to be attracted to each other enough to make a bigger thing from gravity?

is there an experiment that demonstrates this? theres GOT to be a documented experiment demonstrating this. please tell me there is and link it.

The thing is, air molecules ARE sucked down by gravity. So is water. That's why both air pressure and water pressure increase the deeper/closer you get to the center of the Earth's mass. Gravity is pulling the molecules down towards the Earth's center, but at some point, as the molecules get more densely packed, the force of gravity is much smaller than the interactions between the molecules colliding with each other.

right. so shouldn't they gravitate toward one another the closer they get to the earth's core?

 

[darsk20]

Okokok. so please bear with me here.

Why isn't there a gravitational force applied to I individual molecules of our atmosphere from other individual molecules in our atmosphere?

That's what gravity is right? Things being attracted to each other and making a bigger thing?

if gas molecules are constantly bouncing in to each other, shouldn't that cause gravity to take effect?

I guess I just dont understand.

Why aren't we all along with everything on the earth, pulled into a perfect sphere right now?

What ''stops'' air molecules from being sucked to the ground via gravity?

And why, when I ride my gravitron, do I stick to the walls and not to the floor?

I really do feel pretty dumb right now guys. no joke. this is all above my pay grade.

If you have some free time check out Mark Rober on YouTube. He has some very good explanations for things we experience everyday but have a hard time explaining or understanding. He had a recent post about air pressure and why things float, whether in water or the air which would fit in well here.

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

Gravity is a weak force. If it was much stronger then you would see some of that stuff. The molecules do attract each other that way, but much more weakly than via other forces through which they interact. The available energy means that gas molecules are mostly individuals although we do see dimers and trimers etc as they group together.

if gravity is so weak then how did planets form? the bigger a mass, the stronger the gravity right?

So, theoretically, the density of the earth would dictate that its gravity be stronger than other less massive things like gas particles right?

Why would planets form via gravity if there are other more powerful forces at work keeping gas particles from gravitating toward the higher density of the earth's core?

What stopped gravity from taking everything in to the earth's core? At what point did it stop?

I HAVE QUESTIONS

 

[tinfoil hat timmy]

If you have some free time check out Mark Rober on YouTube. He has some very good explanations for things we experience everyday but have a hard time explaining or understanding. He had a recent post about air pressure and why things float, whether in water or the air which would fit in well here.

relative density you mean?

 

[Casinostocks]

So much for a little light reading on my lunch break.

Trust me, have a beer instead... I am all for reading but I will prescribe a cold beer in this case and let's repeat for the nth time that I have become a teetotaler!