Strong enough to keep tons of water stuck to this globe, but not strong enough to hold down a helium balloon.
Something as weak as a mosquito can easily leave the surface and fly.
Strong enough to keep the moon in its orbit.
Not strong enough turn the pyramids to dust with thousands of years of pull.
Not gravity no. It is Anna Nigma who is an enigma.
DARK MATTER is much more ENIGMATIC.
share
"Science!"
😎
Apparently science says about gravity that we can observe it in action, predict it, but not really explain what it is or how it works.
Gravity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
OverviewHistory of gravitational theorySpecificsAnomalies and discrepanciesAlternative theoriesSee alsoFootnotesFurther reading
Gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight' ), or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass or energy—including planets, stars, galaxies, and even light —are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects, and the Moon's gravity causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing and forming starsand caused the stars to group together into galaxies, so gravity is responsi…
There are a lot of things in this universe which we can't really explain. Stephen Hawking had some fascinating ideas about it in his book A Brief History of Time.
😎
I've got a copy of it sitting here right beside of me. Also have another one by Isaac Asimov called "THE COLLAPSING UNIVERSE," which also discusses BLACK HOLES.
In the conclusion of it, HAWKING also discusses what a DESPICABLE person NEWTON was (his treatment of LIEBNIZ and his being responsible for the deaths of other people due to his counterfeiting campaign).
📌📌📌📌📌
Don't remember that part.
😎
https://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
ISAAC NEWTON
Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later
life spent embroiled in heated disputes. Following publication of Principia Mathematica – surely the most
influential book ever written in physics – Newton had risen rapidly into public prominence. He was appointed
president of the Royal Society and became the first scientist ever to be knighted.
Newton soon clashed with the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who had earlier provided Newton with
much-needed data for Principia, but was now withholding information that Newton wanted. Newton would not
take no for an answer: he had himself appointed to the governing body of the Royal Observatory and then tried
to force immediate publication of the data. Eventually he arranged for Flamsteed’s work to be seized and
prepared for publication by Flamsteed’s mortal enemy, Edmond Halley. But Flamsteed took the case to court
and, in the nick of time, won a court order preventing distribution of the stolen work. Newton was incensed and
sought his revenge by systematically deleting all references to Flamsteed in later editions of Principia.
A more serious dispute arose with the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. Both Leibniz and Newton had
independently developed a branch of mathematics called calculus, which underlies most of modern physics.
Although we now know that Newton discovered calculus years before Leibniz, he published his work much
later. A major row ensued over who had been first, with scientists vigorously defending both contenders. It is
remarkable, however, that most of the articles appearing in defense of Newton were originally written by his
own hand – and only published in the name of friends! As the row grew, Leibniz made the mistake of appealing
to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute. Newton, as president, appointed an “impartial” committee to
investigate, coincidentally consisting entirely of Newton’s friends! But that was not all: Newton then wrote the
committee’s report himself and had the Royal Society publish it, officially accusing Leibniz of plagiarism. Still
unsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymous review of the report in the Royal Society’s own periodical. Following
the death of Leibniz, Newton is reported to have declared that he had taken great satisfaction in “breaking
Leibniz’s heart.”
During the period of these two disputes, Newton had already left Cambridge and academe. He had been active
in anti-Catholic politics at Cambridge, and later in Parliament, and was rewarded eventually with the lucrative
post of Warden of the Royal Mint. Here he used his talents for deviousness and vitriol in a more socially
acceptable way, successfully conducting a major campaign against counterfeiting, even sending several men to
their death on the gallows.
Whoa, dude! Paragraph breaks please! That is almost impossible to read.
😎
It was copied and pasted from the link, but came out differently for some reason (probably because it's a PDF file).
If the way it came out bugs you, then just go to the link and read the last page of the CONCLUSION where it's broken up into 4 paragraphs for you.
According to what HAWKING says Newton was a mean and hateful bastard.
Okay then.
😎
So which of HAWKING'S ideas in the book do you find fascinating???
Now that you've got the entire book in that link it should also be pretty easy for you to direct one to which ever chapter(s) you like best, and/or you can also copy & paste here whatever it is that you find interesting.
📌📌📌📌📌
I only read the one.
😎
Do you mean a chapter???
If so, Which one did you read??
You said the book has some fascinating ideas.
There are a lot of things in this universe which we can't really explain. Stephen Hawking had some fascinating ideas about it in his book A Brief History of Time.
I meant I just read the one book. The most fascinating idea was his take on the question "If the universe infinite or finite?" He explained that he thinks it's both, and that time/space is curved.
😎
Chapter 8:
At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audienceshare
with the Pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should
not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was
glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference – the possibility that
space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no
desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of
having been born exactly 300 years after his death!
In the classical theory of gravity, which is based on real space-time, there are only two possible ways the universe
can behave: either it has existed for an infinite time, or else it had a beginning at a singularity at some finite time in
the past. In the quantum theory of gravity, on the other hand, a third possibility arises. Because one is using
Euclidean space-times, in which the time direction is on the same footing as directions in space, it is possible for
space-time to be finite in extent and yet to have no singularities that formed a boundary or edge. Space-time would
be like the surface of the earth, only with two more dimensions. The surface of the earth is finite in extent but it
doesn’t have a boundary or edge: if you sail off into the sunset, you don’t fall off the edge or run into a singularity. (I
know, because I have been round the world!)
If Euclidean space-time stretches back to infinite imaginary time, or else starts at a singularity in imaginary time, we
have the same problem as in the classical theory of specifying the initial state of the universe: God may know how
the universe began, but we cannot give any particular reason for thinking it began one way rather than another.
Okay then.
😎
What's interesting is how he's still concerned about the way the POPE at the time of the conference might treat him the same way as Galileo was treated several centuries ago.
😊
Chapter 1 :
Newton realized that, according to his theory of gravity, the stars should attract each other, so it seemed theyshare
could not remain essentially motionless. Would they not all fall together at some point? In a letter in 1691 to
Richard Bentley, another leading thinker of his day, Newton argued that this would indeed happen if there were
only a finite number of stars distributed over a finite region of space. But he reasoned that if, on the other hand,
there were an infinite number of stars, distributed more or less uniformly over infinite space, this would not
happen, because there would not be any central point for them to fall to.
This argument is an instance of the pitfalls that you can encounter in talking about infinity. In an infinite
universe, every point can be regarded as the center, because every point has an infinite number of stars on
each side of it. The correct approach, it was realized only much later, is to consider the finite situation, in which
the stars all fall in on each other, and then to ask how things change if one adds more stars roughly uniformly
distributed outside this region. According to Newton’s law, the extra stars would make no difference at all to the
original ones on average, so the stars would fall in just as fast. We can add as many stars as we like, but they
will still always collapse in on themselves. We now know it is impossible to have an infinite static model of the
universe in which gravity is always attractive.
It is an interesting reflection on the general climate of thought before the twentieth century that no one had
suggested that the universe was expanding or contracting.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dark-matter-mystery-deepens-demise-reported-detection
For decades, physicists have realized that most of the universe’s matter is nothing like earthly matter, which is made mostly from protons and neutrons. Gravitational influences on visible matter (stars and galaxies) indicate that some dark stuff of unknown identity pervades the cosmos. Ordinary matter accounts for less than 20 percent of the cosmic matter abundance.
Yes it is.
😎
[deleted]
none of those things puzzle me , but what makes gravity actually "pull" in the first place does!
shareInertia. A body that spins fast enough will pull everything to its centre or core.
In its most basic form. The greater the object, the greater the inertia, the greater the gravity.
Hence why the moon has less gravity than Earth and you bounce.
nah. not buying that.
thats means things not spinning dont have gravity
that means is the earth stops spinning gravity would stop?
the greater the object the greater the mass , the more gravity...
Your not buying basic science? Then go back to school. You need to.
thats means things not spinning dont have gravity
that means is the earth stops spinning gravity would stop?
the greater the object the greater the mass , the more gravity...
Politicians also do lots of SPINNING too.
Your not buying basic science? Then go back to school. You need to.
thats means things not spinning dont have gravity
Welll duhhhh
that means is the earth stops spinning gravity would stop?
Are you serious, you are actually asking that. Do you have the IQ of a carrot
the greater the object the greater the mass , the more gravity...
Without inertia, means nothing. Why do you think planets and moons spin? all planets and moons, not some. ALL.
You are either trolling as you can't possibly be that dim
----------------------
I've just copied and paste that cos im sure you'll delete it if i diont.
That is just staggering
That you can be so wrong and at the same time so sure and so aggressive about it.
You think if the earth stops spinning we'll float away?
'You' are either trolling as you can't possibly be that dim {sic}
Would anyone else like to weigh in on this "inertia" theory?
You're not doing yourself any favors here.
share"Inertia. A body that spins fast enough will pull everything to its centre or core."
I'm going to give you a bit of breathing room here but only because I'm so utterly perplexed by this statement. I'm keep an eye on cosmology, purely as an amateur. I hold no degrees nor do I have the aspirations of ever doing it on an even semi-professional level. But this has to be one of the most baffling explanations of gravity that I've ever seen that doesn't fall completely into the category of being a troll response.
I'd really like to see you cite something that even "sort of" points at this as an explanation.
Everything you said is just SO incorrect.
shareIs physics a bunch of lies??
shareI'd ask the question, is religion a bunch of lies, but I'd probably get deleted...Does Physics vs. Religion constitute a Political discussion?
share