If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Einstein rests in his grave as speed of gravity proven equal to light   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 178
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

9917 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2003 at 6:08 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-01-08 06:12:16 PM  
Gravity is the soul of sit.
 
2003-01-08 06:12:39 PM  
Einstien thanks you.
 
2003-01-08 06:14:45 PM  
that's pretty heavy.
 
2003-01-08 06:15:34 PM  
how farking cool.

/i understand its importance because I'm a dork
 
2003-01-08 06:19:18 PM  
the New Scientist article is better


if the sun suddenly dissapeared, it would take around 8 minutes for the earth to fly off in a straight line?
 
2003-01-08 06:19:33 PM  
It's kinda sad, this will have a max of 30 posts, whereas a post that's theme is 'naked people' will easily break 50...

Not that I'm any better, I'd rather watch boobies than gravity too.
 
2003-01-08 06:20:03 PM  
Marty: That's heavy, Doc.

Doc Brown: What's gravity got to do with it? Did something happen to the Earth's gravitational field in the future?

/BTTF reference. Sorry.
 
2003-01-08 06:20:25 PM  
For a theory expressed in 1915, it pretty damn amazing to be PROVEN correct nearly 90 years later.

BTW, If light and gravity both travel @light speed, what else may? Why is it an impossibility for us to ever do so?
just wondering.......
 
2003-01-08 06:20:36 PM  
I'm confused- isn't gravity different on different planets? Are they trying to say that you must have gravity in order to allow light? I read the article, but I am still very, very confused.
 
2003-01-08 06:20:49 PM  
That Einstein was one smart guy, huh?
 
2003-01-08 06:20:49 PM  
Cool!
 
2003-01-08 06:22:08 PM  
And now, can we say FTG instead of FTL speed and mean the same thing?
 
2003-01-08 06:22:11 PM  
I guess I will have to learn math again, I know of other researchers that have 'proved' otherwise.


Now, one of these is wrong.
 
2003-01-08 06:22:20 PM  


How? Well, it's hard to explain. It's easier to show you using the Japanese technique 'Bukkake.'
 
2003-01-08 06:22:35 PM  
Gravity Sucks
 
2003-01-08 06:22:58 PM  
Mercury6613: Haven't you heard the old adage: The improbable we do right away. The impossible just takes a little longer.
 
2003-01-08 06:24:45 PM  
01-08-03 06:20:36 PM Fuzznewtons
I'm confused- isn't gravity different on different planets? Are they trying to say that you must have gravity in order to allow light? I read the article, but I am still very, very confused.

This has nothing to do with mass or weight. Rather, this is dealing with the effects of gravity and the speed at which it effects.
 
2003-01-08 06:25:10 PM  
How cool. I always wondered how fast gravity traveled. Now I know. heh. onto boobies.
 
2003-01-08 06:26:47 PM  
This still doesn't explain why buttered toast always lands butter side down.
 
2003-01-08 06:26:54 PM  
is'nt gravity a force, and light an object? How does a force move? Does it not just apply itself to an object that reacts to the force?

may the force be with you
 
2003-01-08 06:28:32 PM  
Why is it an impossibility for us to ever do so?
just wondering.......


Cuz we'd be torn apart (become light?) if we'd travel that fast.
 
2003-01-08 06:28:51 PM  
thanks Mercury. I understand the concept a little more now, kind of. Of course, I never really paid attention in science, being more interested in drugs and that sort of thing.
 
2003-01-08 06:29:04 PM  
01-08-03 06:26:47 PM InternetSecurityGuard
This still doesn't explain why buttered toast always lands butter side down.

Actually, it does. The butter side is shiny and therefore reflects light while the non buttered side is lighter and therefore travels more slowly than the buttered side. Soooo, the non buttered side will ALWAYS follow the buttered side.....

Meh......
 
2003-01-08 06:29:18 PM  
Scotty_dog: You must have paid way too much attention in physics class ;)

Anyone have an answer to that? Anyone? Anyone?
 
2003-01-08 06:30:01 PM  
Fuzznewton: you're talking about its STRENGTH...so to speak. The bigger the object, the stronger its gravitational pull is.

That says nothing about its velocity.

This is pretty cool to think about. Light travels at a finite speed infinitely in 360 degrees everywhere. Now that Gravity has been proven to have the same characteristic, it can be surmised that whatever you can see DOES have a gravitational effect on you. From the computer in front of you to the earth, the sun, and even distant Galaxies. They are so minute that the only gravitational pulls we have to worry about are the earth, the moon, and the sun, but it does bring up another interesting thought:

Light is not a wave. It is believed to be made of tiny particles called protons. Following the logic, then, would Gravity also behave similarly? Where light (ie: energy) branches out from a source and pushes everything away....Gravity branches out from a source and pulls everything in. Is that what the theorized Dark Matter is? The expanding event horizons of all objects in the universe?

I dunno, I'm hardly a physics buff, and I've probably butchered this with my limited understanding of it (someone correct me if I'm wrong)....but I'm just wondering.

Who can clarify what this really means, if even from a theoretical point of view?
 
2003-01-08 06:30:16 PM  
"What do you know of fire, you prance around like you have laser eyes!" - Oglethorpe
 
2003-01-08 06:30:45 PM  
Oldnbusted :

ROTFLOL!
I wouldn't put it past him either...
 
2003-01-08 06:32:48 PM  
**Why is it an impossibility for us to ever do so?**

Well, we can't travel at light speed because if we did, we would find out the terrible dark secrets of the gnomes that live in our appliances. You know, the ones that turn the light on and off inside fridge. And if we found out their secrets.... they would tear us apart, like Buttch said.
 
2003-01-08 06:33:12 PM  
Where's you science now? farking scientist assholes!
 
2003-01-08 06:33:18 PM  
Ishkur: Well, to start off with, light is not made up of "protons", it is supposedly made up of "photons". Protons are part of the nucleus of an atom.

Probably just a typo ;)
 
2003-01-08 06:33:46 PM  
Light is not a wave. It is believed to be made of tiny particles called protons.

They're called photons, you butcherer:)
 
2003-01-08 06:35:09 PM  
Light is not a wave. It is believed to be made of tiny particles called protons.

Light actually behaves like a particle AND a wave.
 
2003-01-08 06:35:17 PM  
01-08-03 06:32:48 PM Electra225
**Why is it an impossibility for us to ever do so?**

Well, we can't travel at light speed because if we did, we would find out the terrible dark secrets of the gnomes that live in our appliances. You know, the ones that turn the light on and off inside fridge. And if we found out their secrets.... they would tear us apart, like Buttch said.


congratulations jerk, you just got me in trouble at work for laughing out loud......I tried not to.
 
2003-01-08 06:36:23 PM  
Einstien was one incredibly smart dude. He did all of his work in his head. My voices just tell me to keep sharpening the knife.
 
2003-01-08 06:36:34 PM  
light is both a wave and a particle. It's a wierd thing. You can shoot photons at a photographic plate through a defraction grating and see individual spots where the protons land (suggesting particles). However, after a while an interference pattern will emerge (suggesting waves).

So now we know never to stand on a defraction grating less we step in a spot where gravity's interference pattern cancels out and we fly off into space.
 
2003-01-08 06:36:47 PM  
As you accelerate towards lightspeed, your mass increases, becoming infinite as your speed comes arbitrarily close to lightspeed. There is no force in the universe that can accelerate an infinite mass, and so you and I are prevented from reaching lightspeed.

At least, that's what I remember from college...
 
2003-01-08 06:37:41 PM  
The closer you aproach the speed of light , the more your weight equals that of the entire universe.
 
2003-01-08 06:37:57 PM  
What's the closing speed of two objects travelling toward each other at the speed of light?
 
2003-01-08 06:38:04 PM  
well that just make sense.
 
2003-01-08 06:38:43 PM  
N1 Impaler!
 
2003-01-08 06:38:59 PM  
SilverDraghyeon: I hate to say that you were wrong, but we passed 30 comments on this thread in less than an hour and a half. He he.

Never underestimate the power of farkers. And they even stay crunchy when drunk!
 
2003-01-08 06:39:38 PM  
Light actually behaves like a particle AND a wave.

And a photon can be in two places at once
 
2003-01-08 06:42:45 PM  
Ishkur

Actually, light is made of two components electrical and magnetic that are 90 degrees out from each other.

Like light's bigger brother the radio wave.

Gravity only has one component, so any wave would be a compression wave.

I saw this about three days ago on Eurekalert and it has since been taken down. I really begin to suspect something is not quite right.

Never mind, I am going to try to find the pdf abstract and go over it, or send it off to someone who knows what to look for.

Something is not right here
 
2003-01-08 06:44:13 PM  
Mercury6613: People can't go as fast as the speed of light because we have mass. Light and gravity are massless and therefore can go that fast. It would take an infinite amount of energy to get a person up to light speed, and since there is not an infinite amount of energy anywhere, it is impossible. The reason it would take an infinite amount of energy is that as an object's speed increases, so does its mass; the more mass the more energy is needed to move it. The way the equations work out, an object's mass would go to infinity as it approaches the speed of light, and therefore, so would the energy required.

Ishkur: Light "particles" are called photons, not protons (I assume just an innocent typo). Also, gravity is not considered to move as photons, but to be inherent in the fabric of space. The link above in Icecycle's post has a nice 2D picture of what gravity is considered to be. Essentially objects with large mass, such as planets or stars sit in space much like, say, a bowling ball would sit on a bed, creating a dip (curving space, that is). Other objects caught in the dip (like planets around the sun or moons around a planet) circle around (since they already have their own energy and thus are moving). I always like to imagine those donation bins at malls where you drop a quarter on a large funnel-type object and the quarter spins around and around for a long time before dropping into the bin. Similar concept except in 3 dimensions (so it's harder to conceptualize).
 
2003-01-08 06:44:25 PM  
Then why would the grvity of a black hole trap light? Wouldn't they equal out?
 
2003-01-08 06:44:27 PM  
Ishkur
"Light is not a wave. It is believed to be made of tiny particles called protons. Following the logic, then, would Gravity also behave similarly? Where light (ie: energy) branches out from a source and pushes everything away....Gravity branches out from a source and pulls everything in. Is that what the theorized Dark Matter is? The expanding event horizons of all objects in the universe?"

You're both right and wrong at the same time :)
Light is both a wave and a particle, this is pretty much the foundation of Quantum physics. You're correct to theroise about gravity comming in particle form (as well as in wave form, again both particle and wave), and fiddling about trying to work out how such a particle behaves and what its properties should be is one of the main job of physics at the moment.
 
2003-01-08 06:44:34 PM  
from Scrotar:

What's the closing speed of two objects travelling toward each other at the speed of light?


Ouch. Oh Great And Wise Scrotar, what is the answer?

*starts digging through SpinStopper's one Stephen Hawking book*
 
2003-01-08 06:45:12 PM  
What's the closing speed of two objects travelling toward each other at the speed of light?

Do you mean 2 objects traveling at the speed of light? Well, If I see one of the objects move to the right at the speed of light and the other move to the left at the speed of light, I will measure their closing speed to be 2*the speed of light.

If I was on one of the objects, I would measure the closing speed of the other as the speed of light.

It's all relative man.
 
2003-01-08 06:47:15 PM  
Impaler
You bring up a good point. If gravity does exist in waves, then the universe must have weird areas where there is no gravity, due to superimposition. On the other hand, there are so many particles in the universe, that the odds of such a place existing are incredibly small. On the other hand, space is infinitely flat, so there must be an area. Etc.
 
2003-01-08 06:47:17 PM  
Mercury6613: OK, that clears that one up. But what about cats always landing on their feet? Well, maybe that is a bad example. If you duct tape them to a bowling ball, the tend to get squished. But that is bogus science since the experiment can not be repeated. Not with the same cat anyway.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report