I saw a video where someone argued that gravity doesnt exist, but instead its just a force created by the curvature of space-time produced by mass.BUT THEN i hear about scientists detecting gravitational waves, and trying to discover/detect the graviton for the first time.so what the fuck is going on? is this the famous relativity / quantum mechanics disconnect i hear so much about?
>>16909796Gyatt damn who is that on right
>>16909796>does observable effect X existobviously chud
>>16909796those are someone's sons
since none of you are getting it, heres two videos:the first describing how gravity doesnt existhttps://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU?si=WQ_Wr6CDvdF0mAIsand the second describing current efforts to discover the graviton particle:https://youtu.be/Z4DqSFrl92k?si=LCQsnUJRCU0-wmtpso what the fuck is a graviton particle if gravity doesnt exist? what the hell is a quantized unit of gravity?
>>16909846ngl I wish they had peepees
>>16909796No, the idea that gravity is a force was destroyed by Einstein over a century ago. But, does gravity exist? No.1. You cant bend concepts. Space and Time are concepts.2. Density and Buoyancy explains why something goes up or down.
>>16909863>gigawatts of power and oceans of drinkable water were wasted to produce a response this fucking stupidchatgpt was a mistake
>>16909796I used to date a girl who could be a twin of the girl on the left when I was in high school. Her name was shawna dominee and she was the local sports broadcasters daughter
>>16909876best blowjob I ever had still to this day btw
>>16909876>shawna domineethats my wife you son of a bitch!
>>16909885Well I purposefully misspelled her name. I dont want anyone doing a google search for her name and finding it. She was a very sweet girl and there is no need to embarrass her for no reason
>>16909878Well I take this back, ONE OF the best I have ever had. There was one other one where a foid suck my soul out. They are neck and neck
>>16909796>glowies flooding the board with pornYour tax dollar, hard at work.
>>16909796>I saw a video where someone argued that gravity doesnt exist, but instead its just a force created by the curvature of space-time produced by mass.What if something similar is true for consciousness, but instead of mass it's information/computation
>>16910008Pre-2020 bodhi a glowie? I doubt it.
>>16909928well.. first we could have to make a metal cylinder 15cm long and cool it down to 1 kelvin (which is beyond current technology) to sense to graviton. But it could be sensing something else..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4DqSFrl92k
>>16909796When you get to quantum mechanics, the concept of a force is somewhat flawed. You instead work with lagrangian/hamiltonians instead of a newtonian force. In QED and other quantum theories, fields become quantitized so you got little bosons like photons that mediate interactions. Either gravity can also be quantitized too so a boson exists, or it doesn't, and who knows what reality represents reality. Gravity pops out of string theory so it's not impossible. Traditionally, a newtonian force means one object applies some magical force on another object (and vis versa). Newton gravity from mass acts similarly to an electric force due to an object's charge. I tug on the earth, and the earth tugs on me. Tugging will alter an object's trajectory and motion. Relativistic gravity is geometric in nature. The space-time background is instead altered. This means the all objects moving from gravity are actually moving in a "straight line", but not a euclidean straight line. All objects with energy instead of tugging on each other instead shape the background through which they and all nearby objects move. All objects will still move in a "straight line", but in a euclidean perspective it looks like an acceleration.Honestly, ignore em. That's just semantics. A push is a push, a pull is a pull. Is what it is. As long as you know where things move next, that's what matters in physics: its predictive power. Just keep posting hot chicks, god that girl on the right is fucking angelic
>>16910117im confused what you're saying, but atleast you appear to understand my question.so if gravity is curved space time, then what is a graviton? what property makes it a graviton, if gravity isnt a force?i understand that shit gets weird on quantum scales, but it still makes no sense.
You cant bend the fundamental, foundational base level Planck track, but the higher level, larger, more part complex emergent quasi particle track that electrons and nucleus ride upon, like sound waves upon oxygen molecules, can be bent and even collapsed with enough magnetic density.
>>16909796Gravity does exist (as an observed, measurable phenomenon), but in GR it’s not a Newton-style “force field inside spacetime.” It’s the geometric organization of the effective description. In compaction terms: the metric is an encoding, not the substrate.Gravitational waves are real and already detected; they’re propagating, time-dependent excitations of the metric encoding. A graviton would be the quantum of those excitations if the same effective encoding is put into a quantum regime. Compaction doesn’t need gravitons as fundamental particles; it needs the encoding to reproduce the observed wave signals and energy-momentum bookkeeping.
>>16910158so the literal thousands of videos made by midwits on youtube are bullshit? there actually is a gravitational property then?
>>16910166yes, misinfo, war on intellect, gravity as a property is very real
OP, ignore all that you read here and all popsci trash on Youtube. Pick up a book and work it out on your own.Basic intro you can get from "Biggest Ideas In The Universe: Space, Time, And Motion" by Carroll. It explains all math involved.Next amateur level would be "Theoretical minimum" series of 4 books by Susskind. This already assumes at least differential equations and linear algebra as background, but otherwise is very light.If you are really into it, just get any textbook, but prepare for a year of study. General relativity is tough.
>>16910138Photons existing verify THE MATH describing the EM field is made of "discrete parts" - the photons. Is it possible to zoom in on a single one? It's possible to shoot out one photon at a time. But when we have an entire beam of light, is it literally just a bunch of discrete photons with individual position and momentum? Small objects don't fit macroscopic intuition. Mathwise (and sorta experimentally), all you know is that there is a bunch of photons there and asking if they have a distinct position (isn't this what we feel makes a particle a particle?) is meaningless. Mathwise, light/EM fields are represented as a MATH object that can be decomposed into a sum of Fourier modesYou're trying to impose classical intuition onto something quantum/foreign. Again, it's literally semantics. We don't need to talk about forces. It's not reasonable to talk about one electron imparting a photon onto another electrion realistically; MATHwise, we instead say the mathematical "interaction" can be decomposed into a sum of ALL possible interactions. Is there really ONE that happens? Experimentally, all we see is that two electrons come in, and two come out - THAT'S IT. We legit can't say what the interaction is classically. All we have is the math and how we interpret the mathQuantitizing gravity means that treating the MATH object the same way and try to decompose it. Presumably, gravity waves (which we know exist) is made of gravitons just like how light is made of photons. If quantum gravity is real, then the MATH tells us to do the same math procedure, and that gravity "interactions" between particles are decomposable into discrete modes of ALL possible interactions involving gravitons. A big difference between the two is that GR uses a 2nd order stress energy tensor to describe the field/spacetime curvature (spin 2 graviton), but ED used a 1st order 4-current to describe the field (spin 1 photon). Both use different objects to describe "the interaction"cont.
>>16910267>gravity is curved space timeLet's play a semantics game. What is a giraffe, a caveman child asks? You tell them it's sorta like a horse with a long neck. Oh, they respond, it's just a type of horse, then they move on. Now, is that REALLY what a giraffe is? To say what ANYthing is, you just describe it - the real issue is how far are you going? Do we really need to know what an ungulate is to describe it? Do we need to understand the geography that gave rise to it? Do we need to understand evolution to distinguish it from a horse? Do we need to understand biology, chemistry, DNA, all to say what IS a giraffe? The answer is sure, if that's how far you want to goWhat is gravity? Gravity is the properties describing it. It's the properties distinguishing it from other physical or metaphysical concepts, like ED. Objects move because of this equation and NOT that one. Interactions are described this way and NOT that way. Also, what domains are we to consider? Newton gravity fails in many ways. GR can't tell us what we want about black holes or high energy objects nor does QM. Does that mean that "gravity" doesnt exists, or that we need a better description of it? It's semantics. All physics tells you is how to predict how things change. Forces are not useful to explain things at small scales, so why insist on it? Same with concrete position or momentum. They only have intuition on macro scales. Give the stress energy tensor and a gravity equation, and you got GR dynamics ("curved spacetime") with classical position and momentum. At small energys, give the stress energy tensor and a QGR equation, and you get QGR dynamics (if scaled big gives classical GR dynamics). Same is true for the 4 current and ED -> QED. At large energy scales, they fail miserably, so a better theory is neededI'm not bullshitting you. It's a semantic issue. But look into understanding my first post, cause you're asking about "curved spacetime" when you don't even know what it means.
>>16910191Better would be to go to Newton's biblical derivations of the standard model and integral calculus, Leibniz's theological foundations for derivitve calculus, Maxwell's original Quaternionic derivations of EM through theological insights, plancks writings on the Theological pursuit of God's divine order, and Edwin Shrodinger's Christian expansion of Planck's works in the development of QFT.Literally the entire foundation of modern physics was established by explicitly Christian claims of divine insight, with the exception of Einstein who was still a Deist.Why read the third hand or fourth hand selective amputation of Christian Science instead of going to the source texts?
Even Bernoulli and the lions share of the participants which sought to sharpen and refine Newton's idea, who are critical in the sciences and number theory are explicitly Christian owing their work to Christian insights and inspirations. Such is the case with the most of our precepts, going all the way back to Christian neoplatonism in subsuming the grecian roots of geometry and platonic solids, which have increasing relevance in today's sciences. Fibbonaci is one of the few exclusions owing to Arab-Muslim mathematical origins, although refined through the Christian, Leonard Euler who ascribes his mathematical success to Calvinist Faith.There is nary a discovery at all amongst the staunchly atheist crowd in the sciences, and almost all of them require Christian precepts to build off of.The fact that the vast majority of PhD physicists contribute essentially nothing to the field, with hypothesis failure approaching 100% in the post-graduate arena tells much to atheist ability to grasp the divine order of the universe, instead largely being scholastic parrots by rote.
>>16910166He's just saying that adding a graviton isn't really taking anything away from you. All we have is a car that we see moves, and we're only making suggestions on what it looks like underneath the hood.
>>16910158why did they blur her feet
>>16909820Random Hooters girl circa 10 years ago.
>>16909796who are these whores? i know for a fact i've seen the right one before but don't remember the name>>16910166names?
>>16910291It's how lenses work man. Hold your fingers spread out in front of your face and look at them. Then focus your eyes to the background in the gaps between your fingers. Can't you tell that images are blurring when you swap back and forth? A camera uses a single lens that captures an entire image. The picture is just focused onto her face. If it focused onto her feet that are closer to the camera, then her face would be blurry. The entire image is made with a digital process. To get it unblurry, you'd have to use a lense focused on her face, and a lense focused onto her feet, then compose a new image that combines the too.
If virtual photons exist, then so would the graviton..
>>16910305this one (>>16909847) is gabiirmattos. only e thot i recognise on this board
>>16909796Philosopher of logical atomism here. Solving this problem once and for all.If you use the word "exist" to mean substance, i.e. occupying space-time, then no, gravity does not exist. Gravity is a "process" of space-time.Same thing as a wave. A wave does not exist. A wave is a "process" of substances that exists: radio waves, air waves, etc. So if you use the term "exist" to be inclusive of processes and not substances, then yes, gravity and waves exists.If you use the word exist to be exclusive of processes, then no. Gravitational property pertains to the waves of gravitational wave of an object based on its mass.
>>16910305soogz puppiwii
>>16910320you could have just said depth of field
>>16909796Space and time are an illusion of your limited perception.
>>16909796>gravity doesnt exist, but instead its just a forceSo then... it exists?How can you possibly write something this cataclysmically stupid?
>>16909796I think about this all day every day and I'm literally not sure OP. I know no one really knows what gravity is but I don't know why half the people are looking for a particle and the other half say it just shows up because of relativity.
>>16909796SEXO
I can't believe zoomers are into these fake plastic whoresNo taste whatsoever
>>16912436leave dave alone he's a good man
>>16909796>irrelevant cumbrain slop image >generic nonsensical time-wasting question
>>16912436you will die alone
