- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does gravity have an infinite range?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:16 am to DavidTheGnome
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:16 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
One of the topics raised is if there is an absolute smallest quantifiable unit of force, thus a limit to gravity. And if gravity is the curvature of space time, is there an absolute smallest quantifiable unit of length for the space to curve to create it.
But then this would imply that an unquantifiable amount of gravity exists.
1
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:18 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
think its about 46 billion in both directions.
This may be a dumb question/statement, but wouldn't this imply the universe is also at least 46 billion years old?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:18 am to Cruiserhog
That equation you referenced is widely used in classical mechanics, but in relativistic mechanics it isn't the way we prefer to look at the world. Mainly because gravity can be shown to affect light waves, which are made of photons, which are massless. This pretty much means the classical approach is missing something, and that something is that Gravity is better modeled as curvature in space-time.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:22 am to Ross
quote:
That equation you referenced is widely used in classical mechanics, but in relativistic mechanics it isn't the way we prefer to look at the world. Mainly because gravity can be shown to affect light waves, which are made of photons, which are massless. This pretty much means the classical approach is missing something, and that something is that Gravity is better modeled as curvature in space-time.
oh i know it was the simplistic equation, but it gives the force over distance in an easy to see and visualize equation.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:24 am to slackster
quote:
his may be a dumb question/statement, but wouldn't this imply the universe is also at least 46 billion years old?
not dumb you are just forgetting about the ever increasing expansion of the universe being driven by a theorized 'dark energy'. they have to consider that expansion over the 13 billion years we know its existed to consider where the actual edge of space has expanded to.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:26 am to motorbreath
quote:
But then this would imply that an unquantifiable amount of gravity exists.
ive seen theories suggesting gravity leaks out of our universe so you implication is valid
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:17 am to Cruiserhog
Are the dimensions you gave for observable universe? If not wouldn't it be impossible to determine that?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 6:21 am to DavidTheGnome
Why do all that reading when you can just watch a movie?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 6:58 am to Lou Pai
quote:
The universe is shaped exactly like the earth. You go straight long enough, you'll end up where you were.
I've often heard the universe compared to the inside of a balloon that's being blown up.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 7:08 am to Emteein
So the answer to gravity is love? Thanks Chris Nolan
Posted on 1/26/16 at 7:32 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Does gravity have an infinite range?
Yes
Posted on 1/26/16 at 7:42 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I frickin HATE how Reddit is formatted,
Reddit hates how your face is formatted.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:21 am to DavidTheGnome
You are composed of matter that existed at the beginning of time. You tell me.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:37 am to Halftrack
quote:
Today, we know that atoms do not represent the smallest unit of matter. Particles called quarks and leptons seem to be the fundamental building blocks - but perhaps there is something even smaller. Physicists are still far from understanding why a proton has about 2,000 times more mass than an electron.
Apr 25, 2014
If we can't put a limit on microparticles (nanoparticles?) how can there be a quantifiable unit of gravity?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:46 am to slackster
quote:
the answer is 3, 5, 8, or 11 depending on your perspective.
Not so fast...
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:48 am to 19
Yep. I see all that nerd stuff.
Hey, did you guys know that if you get a hot chick, she might let you put your penis in her vagina?
Hey, did you guys know that if you get a hot chick, she might let you put your penis in her vagina?
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:02 am to ErectileReptile
Yes its only theorized, they cannot see the edge of space. Our visual limit goes back to about 13.1 billion years beyond that redshift usually is so great that the objects fade into infra red only.
Its olber's paradox...if a universe, static and infinitely full of stars uniformly distributed why does your line of sight not eventually hit surface of a bright star, why then is night sky not bright.
the universe is expanding and light redshifts into the invisible wavelengths.
Its olber's paradox...if a universe, static and infinitely full of stars uniformly distributed why does your line of sight not eventually hit surface of a bright star, why then is night sky not bright.
the universe is expanding and light redshifts into the invisible wavelengths.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:02 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
And if gravity is the curvature of space time, is there an absolute smallest quantifiable unit of length for the space to curve to create it.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:11 am to waiting4saturday
nevermind
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 9:12 am
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:14 am to DeathValley85
quote:
I want to even.
Butquote:
I literally can't even
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News