From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Gravity, like evolution, is only a theory. Why isn't there a movement to "teach the controversy" in schools? Daecon 17:39, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

It's not just a theory... it's the Law! And said movement does exist, along with pastafarianism, etc. But since it isn't serious, it's mostly people adding humorous stickers to science textbooks. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:44, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Aww, that's no fun... Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:47, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
"Although technically gravity reaches from every object in the universe to every other, its effects due to very distant ones become much less noticeable." That's not right, is it? I could've swear gravity's influence "traveled" (I'm pretty sure there's a better term for this) at the speed of light, thus not affecting bodies outside the observable universe. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 17:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I with Deacon on this one. Basically there are two theories of gravity. One is the one Einstein gave us with space bending and all, and another from the quantum world with particles exchanging other little particles called gravitons. So there is a controversy to teach. And until such time as science decides which theory of gravity is correct the bible must be true. (I think I may have jumped a track there somewhere.)--Bobbing up 17:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
That depends on which theory you subscribe to. If gravity is transmitted by a force carrier particle (the graviton) then it would be limited to traveling at the speed of light, however if gravity is an inherent feature in the fabric of spacetime (either caused by or causing curvature) then it isn't subject to any speed limit. Daecon 17:58, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
You didn't jump a track so much as you touched the third rail. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, until science reconciles them, there is. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:59, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Gah, I'm slow at typing. What Bob said! :-) Daecon 18:01, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Analogous to PE vs gradualism, neither Gould nor Dawkins disputes that nat.sel or evolution exists, just by what mechanism it operates.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --Yee haw! 18:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Palm - your abbreviations may speed up your typing, but they really slow down up my reading!--Bobbing up 18:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Relativity (with the bending of space) predicts that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.[1] The warping of space is a useful way of visualizing gravity and until you get to the quantum world, works quite well. Just because relativity describes gravity better in certain situations doesn't mean you can't use Newton's laws for general approximations. --Shagie 18:10, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Strength of gravity[edit]

There's reports that gravity isn't really that strong, as in the case of the recent Balloon Boy hoax:

Similar articles would be Lawnchair Larry (which was legit and repeated on Mythbusters). Should this information be added here, or in a separate article? -- 16:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh what? It's true gravity is a very weak force, compared to the others, but I don't think that, er, balloons are "evidence" of that. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Baloons only demonstrate that gravity has varying effects on varying substances - e.g. nitrogen, oxygen, etc. are denser than helium. In terms of gravity being weak, compare it to other forces - e.g. magneticism. A fridge magnet is a pretty common example: that little bit of magnetic material is exerting a much stronger force in holding onto the fridge surface than the gravitational force of the whole earth which would otherwise pull it downwards. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
But there's friction in that scenario too. Perhaps somebody should butter a fridge magnet and see what happens (everyone in the house will think he's gone mad, that's what'll happen). Totnesmartin 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The only friction is due to the magnetic force. Open fridge door, put magnet on underside of door edge. It still holds. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed I wrote "magneticism" instead of "magnetism". I was gonna correct it, but actually I kinda like it that way. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Will the gravitist vs. magneticist wars ever cease? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's very weak, if it was any stronger the world (universe) would be a much different place. The balance of the fundamental forces is quite interesting and basically controls the size that things can grow to; you can't get a living organism the size of a planet because it would collapse on itself due to gravity, thus forming a planet. There was an interesting essay on it somewhere and I'll be intrigued to find out what and where it is so I can look it up again. Although this balance isn't as delicate and fine-tuned as, say, creationist "fine-tuning" arguments claim. (hehe, magneticist...) Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Newton & t'apple[edit]

"After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden and drank tea, under the shade of some apple trees. [Newton] told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. It was occasion'd by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood. 'Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground,' thought he to himself. 'Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? But constantly to the earth's centre? Assuredly, the reason is, that the earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter.'"
William Stukeley, a friend of Newton, published in 1752 courtesy Biophemera
Just interesting - that's all. I have just eaten Toast& stiltontalk 19:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Good thing he planted apples and not maples or sycamores... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Theory of gravity[edit]

Bet the author of this [2] still avoids going under 'heavy objects.' (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition of law and theory.[edit]

The header for a subsection is labelled "law of gravity" but within the section it's stated that its just a theory and not fact. A) you can label something as a law and a theory. That's elementary school science that every 10 year old should know. B) just because its a theory (which you can't seem to make up your mind about what it is) does not mean it isn't factual. Newton's laws dealing with physics are quite factual whether you like it or not. They make correct predictions in a majority of everyday applications. Relativity is only used at speeds (which is a vectorless quantity) and masses that have noticeable relativistic effects such as traveling at 10% the speed of light.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 06:31, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)

That wording is a dig at the creationist claim that "evolution is a theory, not a fact". I'll leave to someone else deciding whether an non-obvious, inside joke that an outsider may not get should be left in the article.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Trampoline Analogy[edit]

Wait... if the cause of gravity can be explained by the famous "trampoline analogy", then what's pulling the bowling ball and marble down? "Meta-gravity"?— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All analogies are, by definition, imperfect.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Gravity and evolution[edit]

For those who claim 'evolution is merely a theory' 'well, it is also the theory of gravity - go stand under that unsafe heavy load.' (Sometimes one pseudo-bad logic swamps an actual bad logic') (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Rangutan's theory of gravitation[edit]

Regarding BoN 250's edits, that mirror the previously reverted edits by Rangutan the user, may I ask who is Rangutan the theoretical physicist and where does it say their theory is on par with the other two legitimate alternate theories? Hertzy (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Add a quote?[edit]

Normally I don't think I would mention it, but since you quoted Peter Griffin, how about:

—Isaac Newton, the moment he discovered gravity

Potentially with some strike through to point out that the apple falling on his head story is fabricated. (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)