Behold the Mountains of Mars!

Prick! wrote: »

What causes gravity then?

Allah.

Allah pulls everything together.

Honestly.

picard-facepalm.jpg?1240934151

Prick!

Boring.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not complicated. Actually, it is complicated when you start taking relativity into account - but it's easy to understand.

The fact that some people believe that gravity is a function of the spinning of the Earth merely demonstrates that people will believe almost anything. It's no wonder we have so much mumbo jumbo masquerading as science about the place.

Anyway, that's getting waaaaaayyyy off topic. Sorry. :cool:

I dont think it is easy to understand, I'm not sure about it and I take an active interest in this sort of thing. I know its a manifestation of the affect mass has on spacetime or some such but the hows and why's are not clear to me. I'd be more than delighted to hear your easy to understand version though.

And I dont think its fair to say that its proof people will believe anything. When people are wrong about something you inform them, you dont ridicule them and talk down to them. Plenty of people dont take enough interest in the sciences to have an understanding of such things. And the understanding they do have has been picked up somewhere along the way and never challenged as it never came up.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Ughh.....no, that is completely wrong. You are equating gravity with centrifugal force. What gives Earth gravity is its mass.

And this is why I am not a scientist & avoided this stuff in school - it made sense to me

:o:o

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that some people believe that gravity is a function of the spinning of the Earth merely demonstrates that people will believe almost anything. It's no wonder we have so much mumbo jumbo masquerading as science about the place.

Well bully for you - that you are that much more intelligent than the rest of us plebs.

I read the answers for the explanations on the magnetic fields & gravity and I can safely say that I didn't understand them. Science is not my forte so I will go back to enjoying the pictures of Mars.

Scioch wrote: »

Plenty of people dont take enough interest in the sciences to have an understanding of such things.

Regrettably, this doesn't prevent them from commenting.

I know the square root of sod all about (for example) DIY or gardening. But I don't go around making comments about those subjects as if I did.

Queen-Mise wrote: »

Well bully for you - that you are that much more intelligent than the rest of us plebs.

Take that chip off your shoulder - this, as you well know, has more to do with interest than intelligence.

I'm interested - and I don't tend to comment on stuff I know nothing about as if I did know something about it. I just find it a pity that a lot of people can't do the same when it comes to science, that's all. No offence intended.

Deleted User wrote: »

Regrettably, this doesn't prevent them from commenting.

I know the square root of sod all about (for example) DIY or gardening. But I don't go around making comments about those subjects as if I did.

Nothing wrong with people commenting on anything. In this case someone tried to help someone else out by giving them what they believed to be a valid explanation.

They were wrong, others explained that and everyone learned something. On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever to be gained from looking down on people because they are wrong and saying they shouldnt comment unless they know what they are talking about.

Maybe you dont comment on stuff your not well educated on but many do including myself. I've commented on politics, science, humanities, legal, sports, technology and crap load more and I've been wrong many times. But I still get involved and I discuss stuff and I learn and I know much much more now from getting involved and been told I was wrong than I would if I hadnt gotten involved.

Deleted User wrote: »

Take that chip off your shoulder - this, as you well know, has more to do with interest than intelligence.

I'm interested - and I don't tend to comment on stuff I know nothing about as if I did know something about it. I just find it a pity that a lot of people can't do the same when it comes to science, that's all. No offence intended.

They may have been no offence intended but it was very offensive.

Scioch wrote: »

They were wrong, others explained that and everyone learned something. On the other hand there is nothing whatsoever to be gained from looking down on people because they are wrong and saying they shouldnt comment unless they know what they are talking about.

When you've put up with mumbo jumbo in the name of science for decades, you sometimes get a bit irritable about these matters.

When I want to get to grips with something I don't know I either work it out, look it up, or ask questions. I don't just wander in to a discussion somewhere and express whatever random opinion I happen to hold as if it were correct, in the vague hope that either (a) it just happens to be correct or (b) that if it isn't, someone reliable and knowledgeable will point me in the right direction.

That's my approach, and I happen to think it works. If it's not yours, that's a matter for you. 'n'all'n'anyways we are, as I said already, a long way off topic. So let's just agree to disagree and get back to the pictures from another planet.

Nabber

An argument on the internet? In a Mars picture thread?

Well I'll be!

Gravity through mass is fine. Infinite gravity explain that one in a easy to understand way

Dubh Geannain

Scioch wrote: »

The notion that gravity is caused by the spinning of the earth is a pretty wide held view in my experience. Its a plausible answer to someone who hasnt looked into it.

I suppose the best way to quash that belief is to liken it to a spinning roundabout. You let go you get thrown off.

Without gravity we'd all be turfed out into space by the earth's rotation.

Deleted User wrote: »

When you've put up with mumbo jumbo in the name of science for decades, you sometimes get a bit irritable about these matters.

When I want to get to grips with something I don't know I either work it out, look it up, or ask questions. I don't just wander in to a discussion somewhere and express whatever random opinion I happen to hold as if it were correct, in the vague hope that either (a) it just happens to be correct or (b) that if it isn't, someone reliable and knowledgeable will point me in the right direction.

That's my approach, and I happen to think it works. If it's not yours, that's a matter for you. 'n'all'n'anyways we are, as I said already, a long way off topic. So let's just agree to disagree and get back to the pictures from another planet.

You cant expect people to research everything you want to say before saying it on an internet forum. The poster wasnt aware they were wrong and I sincerely doubt they just posted whatever popped into their head in the hopes it was was. They simply had the wrong understanding and by the looks of it was happy to be corrected. There is nothing wrong with that. People are allowed to be wrong sometimes. Takes little effort to point them in the right direction. No more than it takes to ridicule them anyway. So personally I'd go for the former seeing as the latter achieves nothing.

I wont agree to disagree I'm afraid, I dont think it fair at all to expect people not to be wrong on anything ever. This is a discussion forum not a scientific journal. People are free to comment and say whatever they like and should not be ridiculed for being mistaken.

Captain Chaos

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

Without gravity we'd all be turfed out into space by the earth's rotation.

Without gravity a star cannot function and our sun would not exist, or any of the planets have formed at all.

Scioch wrote: »

I wont agree to disagree I'm afraid....

No bother. That's not my call anyway.

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

I suppose the best way to quash that belief is to liken it to a spinning roundabout. You let go you get thrown off.

Without gravity we'd all be turfed out into space by the earth's rotation.

Yeah its a handy one to set right, but its not that far fetched to think a spinning planet can affect a force on the things on it because it does. As ya say though the force would propel us outward so they would have it backwards and then think that must be gravity. But you can see why so many people would think thats what gravity was. A little common sense with a misunderstanding which leads to a false conclusion.

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

I suppose the best way to quash that belief is to liken it to a spinning roundabout. You let go you get thrown off.

Without gravity we'd all be turfed out into space by the earth's rotation.

This makes a lot of sense.

Is there a simple analogy that explains gravity? Is there any experiments you can do at home that could make it clearer?

Blowfish

Queen-Mise wrote: »

Is there a simple analogy that explains gravity? Is there any experiments you can do at home that could make it clearer?

This is a (very) simplistic explanation.

Queen-Mise wrote: »

This makes a lot of sense.

Is there a simple analogy that explains gravity? Is there any experiments you can do at home that could make it clearer?

Gravity is remarkably weak, but it doesn't seem that way to us. The easy ways to demonstrate this are to hold something in your hand (not something breakable) and then let it go - or to hold a pin with a magnet.

I'm not kidding with the above examples. Gravity is the weakest of the various forces that act on physical objects. Everything in the universe pulls on everything else - but the amount of pulling that an object does depends on how big it is and how far away it is from you. So where gravity gets its advantage over the other forces (electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) is that it works at a bit of a distance. The Earth is far bigger than we are and far heavier, so it pulls on us a lot harder than we pull on it.

The force of gravity attracts objects. Yet even with the entire force of the Earth's gravity pulling on a weight, you can stop it working by simply putting your hand in the way - and if the object isn't too big you can do it effortlessly.

Electromagnetism is weaker than gravity, but at short distances gravity loses its advantage and electromagnetic forces take over. That's what the pin and the magnet experiment shows. Even a small magnet with a tiny force will hold a pin against the entire force of the Earth's gravity. But if you pull the pin an inch or two away, the magnet won't have enough force over that distance and the Earth's gravity will win out. But overall, electromagnetism is a far stronger force than gravity - I can't remember exactly, but you're talking a multiple of 1 with about 35 zeros after it.

The crucial reason why the spinning roundabout analogy is important is this: Gravity never repels, it can only attract. So if a force throws you away from something, it can't be like gravity.

Finally, if you fall off a wall or out of a tree (I don't recommend either), you fall towards the Earth. But the Earth also falls towards you. :eek:

--Kaiser--

While we're correcting stuff: gravity is not a force. Not in the same way that electromagnetic and weak and strong atomic forces are. Gravity is the acceleration of a body towards another one due to curvature of space-time

So does all of this mean there won't be a penis drawn on the surface of Mars?

Ho-hum.

ScumLord

Queen-Mise wrote: »

And this is why I am not a scientist & avoided this stuff in school - it made sense to me :o:o

Ah now, with that attitude you'll never learn anything. :pac:

On the face of it gravity looks quite simple. Everything has gravity but the bigger the thing is the more gravity it has (well the more mass (heavier) it has the more gravity it has) it can almost be thought of like magnets that work on everything not just some metals. The bigger the magnet the more power it has to pull things towards it.

When you get into the nitty gritty of what gravity actually is it get's complicated, odd and confusing because it's bending time and space and it's not really pulling things around at all.

Prick!

I can understand what gravity is, just not how it's created.

I know how the magnetic field is created, due to the iron core. But what makes gravity?

norrie rugger

ScumLord wrote: »

Ah now, with that attitude you'll never learn anything. :pac:

On the face of it gravity looks quite simple. Everything has gravity but the bigger the thing is the more gravity it has (well the more mass (heavier) it has the more gravity it has) it can almost be thought of like magnets that work on everything not just some metals. The bigger the magnet the more power it has to pull things towards it.

When you get into the nitty gritty of what gravity actually is it get's complicated, odd and confusing because it's bending time and space and it's not really pulling things around at all.

And that it could be a stronger force, in other dimensions, which would account for its relative weakness in ours

ScumLord

Prick! wrote: »

I can understand what gravity is, just not how it's created.

It's hard to say, my normal tactic of asking google and regurgitating the first answer only throws up this.

Actually, we can't say how gravity is created.

You're getting into the use of dark energy and other dark things and in science terms dark means they're guessing and don't really have an answer.

But if you image space to be water and then you put matter into that water the water has to move around the object. It's that movement of water around the object that is creating the gravity. I think, not sure though.

ScumLord

norrie rugger wrote: »

And that it could be a stronger force, in other dimensions, which would account for its relative weakness in ours

Well clearly we have to find these other dimensions and destroy them.

ScumLord wrote: »

But if you image space to be water and then you put matter into that water the water has to move around the object. It's that movement of water around the object that is creating the gravity. I think, not sure though.

And the "water" is the higgs field ?

--Kaiser--

ScumLord wrote: »

But if you image space to be water and then you put matter into that water the water has to move around the object. It's that movement of water around the object that is creating the gravity. I think, not sure though.

I like Hawking's description of gravity using a trampoline (space-time), a bowling ball (a massive object such as the sun) and marbles (objects subject to the gravity of the massive object)

Prick!

Really hard to get my head around it. I want to know!!!!! :P