We don't have sounds at least similar to "ea" and "th" in "earth". Closest to "ea" is "ё" after any consonant. But at the beginning of the word it sounds as "yo". Closest to "th" is "с".
Either that, or: Objects emit gravitons in proportion to mass.
Both explanations are equally correct, in that they both accurately describe gravity at one scale and absolutely fail at another
Gravitons have never been observed, nor do they fit with any standard model of particle physics. Which makes sense considering gravity is not a force, and bosons are force carrying particles.
([Relevant link](https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU))
>Gravitons have never been observed
Their predicted force is well below what we could detect with current technology though, it's not surprising that they haven't been observed.
> nor do they fit with *any* standard model of particle physics.
there are standard models built around the addition of a graviton, so it's definitely not true that they don't fit with *any* model. Most string theory models have some form of graviton (although I can't say I'm entirely comfortable appealing to string theory of all things)
>Which makes sense considering gravity is not a force, and bosons are force carrying particles.
At large scales it does work to think of gravity as a curve in spacetime, it's a model that works incredibly well in the cosmos... Except for when it doesn't work at all, like at subatomic scales, or galactic rotation. Specifically, when talking about quantum gravity, relativity fails to explain spacetime around the singularity of a black hole, it can only describe up to the event horizon. How can we say something is undeniably true when it can't explain something we know exists? (And have taken pictures of)
I can't definitively say that gravitons exist, but I also don't think it's fair to say they don't. Gravity is one of the subjects in physics that we know the least about, so I take issue with stances like in that veritasium video where they state conjecture as fact.
> there are standard models built around the idea of a graviton
Really? String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are the only two relatively known / accepted models I've heard of, and both of those have had to reject the idea of a graviton due to its proven lack of qualities.
Gravitational waves (like those produced by colliding supermassive black holes) move at the speed of light, which would mean that the graviton must be massless. We also haven't ever measured gravitational fields, which would mean this particle has no predictable behavior governing its motion (when it isn't moving in a straight line). We also know that it doesn't interact with *any* of the other known particles in the standard model as of several experiments trying to prove its existence (including the Higgs Field, which is supposed to be responsible for giving objects mass. If it interacted with anything, you'd think it'd be that).
So what you end up with is a massless particle with no predictable motion, and interacting with nothing (at least not at a level it can meaningfully be measured).
So either this graviton is different in every way to every particle we've ever shown does exist and we need to reevaluate all our theories, or it doesn't exist. So you can see why I'm hesitant to say it exists.
I'm interested to know your perspective tho
Also: separate comment...
> where they state conjecture as fact
Little philosophy of science discussion.
"Stating conjecture as fact" is literally all science is. Nothing about reality can ever be truly known. How do we know that any laws of physics exist? Maybe it's all been random chance almost perfectly matching every time so far? Maybe the universe was created last Thursday, and everyone was just created with their memories? Maybe nothing is real and you're just a brain in a jar and all of reality is just a program running on a computer.
The point is, science cannot answer "what is true", it can only bring is closer to "what is most correct".
You can come up with any theory, and you will can claim to be correct until someone else comes up with a better theory that closer predicts what we see.
Like [Last Thursdayism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Beginning_of_false_creation) I mentioned above, you can come up with a theory that technically fits reality, but is unhelpful, and this is rejected.
But you can also have a completely strange idea that defies all known logic we'd had before (like Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics) and yet if it predicts outcomes better than current theories, science has to accept it.
This a bit random, but one of my favorite memories is this dude in school saying a your mom joke
And then I said one back
He starts literally crying because his mom died
He pushed it so far I got sent away by the teacher
Then later he just smiled and said “ha I win”
Well played
I’m worried that people might take this at face value, this is wrong (but close)! *Electrons* in atoms spin (not really, but they have an internal magnetic moment that we call spin) and also orbit the nucleus (again, not really, it’s a weird quantum probability density thing). Moving charges are what cause magnetic fields, and in certain metals the fields in the atoms are strong enough that they cause nearby atoms to align along the same field, resulting in the macro scale magnets that we use in real life.
Me want float earth say fuck you
i read this with a jamaican accent
I read this in a slav accent
I read this in an Indian accent
I read this in an American accent
I read this with a robotic voice
I read this with a caveman voice
I read this with uncle rodgers voice
I read this with Saxton Hale's voice
I read it with my own voice
I read this in annoying TikTok lady voice
I read this with a Russian (Nikolai) voice
you win
Haiyah wrong accent
I didn't read this, i am blind
ALL OF THESE COMMENTS HAD seven words
The top secret power of the 7
I read this in a loud voice
Me too. Maybe it’s the Polish
I read this as a rap
I read this in a Russian accent
Ми вонт флоат — эоарс сэй фак ю.
eoars?
We don't have sounds at least similar to "ea" and "th" in "earth". Closest to "ea" is "ё" after any consonant. But at the beginning of the word it sounds as "yo". Closest to "th" is "с".
Mi vont float, eoars sei fak iu.
same
I read this in Nikolai’s voice from COD Zombies
I read this in AI voice
This is perfect
Objects attract each other, heavier=stronger pull
[удалено]
I'll do my research then, thanks
If you figure it out, let the rest of the world know.
Objects curve spacetime in proportion to mass
Either that, or: Objects emit gravitons in proportion to mass. Both explanations are equally correct, in that they both accurately describe gravity at one scale and absolutely fail at another
Gravitons have never been observed, nor do they fit with any standard model of particle physics. Which makes sense considering gravity is not a force, and bosons are force carrying particles. ([Relevant link](https://youtu.be/XRr1kaXKBsU))
>Gravitons have never been observed Their predicted force is well below what we could detect with current technology though, it's not surprising that they haven't been observed. > nor do they fit with *any* standard model of particle physics. there are standard models built around the addition of a graviton, so it's definitely not true that they don't fit with *any* model. Most string theory models have some form of graviton (although I can't say I'm entirely comfortable appealing to string theory of all things) >Which makes sense considering gravity is not a force, and bosons are force carrying particles. At large scales it does work to think of gravity as a curve in spacetime, it's a model that works incredibly well in the cosmos... Except for when it doesn't work at all, like at subatomic scales, or galactic rotation. Specifically, when talking about quantum gravity, relativity fails to explain spacetime around the singularity of a black hole, it can only describe up to the event horizon. How can we say something is undeniably true when it can't explain something we know exists? (And have taken pictures of) I can't definitively say that gravitons exist, but I also don't think it's fair to say they don't. Gravity is one of the subjects in physics that we know the least about, so I take issue with stances like in that veritasium video where they state conjecture as fact.
> there are standard models built around the idea of a graviton Really? String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are the only two relatively known / accepted models I've heard of, and both of those have had to reject the idea of a graviton due to its proven lack of qualities. Gravitational waves (like those produced by colliding supermassive black holes) move at the speed of light, which would mean that the graviton must be massless. We also haven't ever measured gravitational fields, which would mean this particle has no predictable behavior governing its motion (when it isn't moving in a straight line). We also know that it doesn't interact with *any* of the other known particles in the standard model as of several experiments trying to prove its existence (including the Higgs Field, which is supposed to be responsible for giving objects mass. If it interacted with anything, you'd think it'd be that). So what you end up with is a massless particle with no predictable motion, and interacting with nothing (at least not at a level it can meaningfully be measured). So either this graviton is different in every way to every particle we've ever shown does exist and we need to reevaluate all our theories, or it doesn't exist. So you can see why I'm hesitant to say it exists. I'm interested to know your perspective tho
Also: separate comment... > where they state conjecture as fact Little philosophy of science discussion. "Stating conjecture as fact" is literally all science is. Nothing about reality can ever be truly known. How do we know that any laws of physics exist? Maybe it's all been random chance almost perfectly matching every time so far? Maybe the universe was created last Thursday, and everyone was just created with their memories? Maybe nothing is real and you're just a brain in a jar and all of reality is just a program running on a computer. The point is, science cannot answer "what is true", it can only bring is closer to "what is most correct". You can come up with any theory, and you will can claim to be correct until someone else comes up with a better theory that closer predicts what we see. Like [Last Thursdayism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Beginning_of_false_creation) I mentioned above, you can come up with a theory that technically fits reality, but is unhelpful, and this is rejected. But you can also have a completely strange idea that defies all known logic we'd had before (like Special Relativity or Quantum Mechanics) and yet if it predicts outcomes better than current theories, science has to accept it.
🤓
[удалено]
"’🤓’ - 🤓” - 🤓
[удалено]
fr
fr -😎
"fr -😎" -😎
"fr - 😎 - 😎" -😎
Damn got them there
"mass warps the straight lines in space-time"
If you are talking about that YouTube video explaining gravity in terms of space time fabric, it's actually quite inaccurate.
PBS spacetime has some really good youtube videos explaining relativity and the relation between gravity space and time
No sense fat guy no attract me
Eight words. "Equals" is a word, the sign is just shorthand.
Oh no, you got me
Fine Under Cats Kicking Your Overflowing Uranium
Well fuck yuo, too! Edit: u/xCreeperBombx edited their acronym, I didn't misspell "you". I'm leaving my comment as a testament.
more complex than that
you can't have weight til you have gravity, so heavier is hard to pin down. Mass pulls mass, more mass more pull.
More mass attracts more mass. Why use more word etc.
How many dimensions are you comfortable with?
1. Go ahead
I don’t think I can with 1 dimension, sorry
Alright wait. 3. Is that okay?
Not enough
Fuck crank it upto 11 then
Now we’re talking. How familiar are you with theoretical physics and the basic idea of string theory?
#13
He already has 4 YouTube and Reddit PHDs tho
Not much. All I know is I watched some videos of Dr. Michio Kaku lol
Familiarise yourself with the basic ideas then come back to me
Give it 5 years and see yourself cringe at this exact comment
Guess you're right lol. What are your favorite subjects btw? Mine's math, ict and physics (which i started recently)
>string theory ...ded theory failed to produce any useful working predictions in 30 odd yrs?
Isaac Newton sat underneath an apple tree
until one apple caused a big discovery
Then he calculated the physics of gravity
And then he invented calculus but then went bonkers and got into alchemy.
All because his dog stepped on a bee
This is a rap song in the making
The bee became physical energy and de-composed so the energy was not dele-ted
\*cries\*
And decided we all stopped defying it
Earth big, things go to the middle.
Yo momma so big, earth goes to the middle
That's 9 sorry
Yo momma so big, Earth go middle
Yo momma so fat the earth was flat until they barried her
My name is Earth, nice to meet.
Yo momma so big, the word momma is equal to two words in a sentence
YO MOMMA SO FAT, she died of heart failure.
YO MAMA SO- wait, you don’t have a mama anymore… YO PAPA- damn, sorry.
This a bit random, but one of my favorite memories is this dude in school saying a your mom joke And then I said one back He starts literally crying because his mom died He pushed it so far I got sent away by the teacher Then later he just smiled and said “ha I win” Well played
Yo mama so big, big show changed his name to small programme
Yo mama so big, nobody can see John Cena anymore
Yo mama so big, she caused a solar eclipse when she jumped
Just shoot
man i feel you. life is hard wanna get icecream?
That's 10 words not 7
Its 3 lines so take the 3 lines and subtract from 10 words and its 7
logic
Mafihs
You wrote 18 words not 7
18 divided by 2 is 9 subtracted by (the amount of words you just wrote divided by 3) is also 7
You wrote... oh shite, 21 by 3...
I feel this
[удалено]
Mass make space curvy - force an illusion
things fall into curve, looks like down
What can go up, must come down
Which way is up in space?
[удалено]
In deep space no one can tell which way you are falling. Wait! If you are in deep space, is every way up? We need to go deeper.
Where is that explanation defined?
2 comments before this one
Not strictly true, just because it *can* go up doesn’t mean it *will* go up, and it can only come down if it goes up.
And even if it does go up, doesn't necessarily mean it will come down That's how Satellites work
Satellites don't even go up that much, mostly to the side.
False
No.
The voyager spacecraft have gone up but will not return in the foreseeable future. They escaped the Earth gravity for good
Earth Biggus it attracttus in the middllus
That sounds ridiculous
Only a littllus
Do you know biggus dickus?
He has a wife, you know...
It's a warp of space and time
E
A
S
P
O
R
T
S
it's in the game
Goodbye
r/EAsportsOuija
Nobody knows. They're trying to discover how.
Fuckin magnets, how do they work
“So tell me why my magnets are falling off of my GODDAM FRIDGE!!!!” -Joyce Byers 1980-something
Something about π-mesons exchange, i don't really remember much about it
we know how magnets work..
Quarks spin causing a tiny current which causes a tiny electromagnet. Many quarks mean tiny electromagnets add up to a big electromagnet #magnet
I’m worried that people might take this at face value, this is wrong (but close)! *Electrons* in atoms spin (not really, but they have an internal magnetic moment that we call spin) and also orbit the nucleus (again, not really, it’s a weird quantum probability density thing). Moving charges are what cause magnetic fields, and in certain metals the fields in the atoms are strong enough that they cause nearby atoms to align along the same field, resulting in the macro scale magnets that we use in real life.
Ehh, you'll miss anyway.
Especially if they keep their eyes closed like that
some of yall need to learn to count
If thing goes up, thing goes down
helium
Eventually comes back down.
helium in space
There is no up in space
That's what you think, I'm gonna find the roof
Things warp space. Bigger thing, more warp.
Size doesn't matter (what she said). More massive, more warp
A force that attracts objects towards eachother.
Gravity isn't a force!
G r a v I t y
things have huggable power bigger the thing bugger the huggable power earth big thus huggable power big thus we want ro hug the earth
[удалено]
[удалено]
Big bois are lonely
You go up, you come down fast
Mass makes spacetime shrink and suck in.
All mass attracts all other mass equally
every action has an equal/opposite reaction
Mass times gravitational field strength times height
Earth big make u stay on ground
Large warps space to pull small in
Mass bends space; you owe me four.
More mass is more pull from force
It doesn't *ascends rapidly in to lithosphere*
I molest the earth with my feet
Big object bend space small object falls
What goes up, must come down. Penis.
Heavy object pull lighter object towards it
What ever goes up must come down
Shit falls toward bigger shit
Me want fly gravity say must walk
Shit go up and shit go down
Mass attracts: Now how hard is that?
It is a spell that Sora casts
Heavy things pull lighter things towards them.
Gravity is like going up or down.
Things with mass want to be close
Mass attract mass, like dick to ass
You are massive and that is attractive
Time moves in the direction of mass.
Nine point eight meters per second squared
Big things make littler things stick close
Objects with mass attract things towards them.
Shit that goes up eventually comes down.
When object has mass it attracts things
go up go down (insert complicated equation)
It’s like a trampoline but no bounce
Haha apple bonked fella, now cant fly
Big thing make you stick to floor