4 ms·

Considering any disagreement with the idea that gravity is a force would end your academic career in physics and an over 99% agreement with that idea, how meani

Considering any disagreement with the idea that gravity is a force would end your academic career in physics and an over 99% agreement with that idea, how meaningful is that?

Drybones 5y ago
1. The existence of gravity and it's proofs are vastly different than this topic and not comparable. 2. What gravity even is at a technical is still unknown and debated right now between a few theories. The question here isn't about if humans affect climate to any degree, because that would be an easy agreement, but is it actually significant and what percentage of the changes we measure, which so far are quite minute over the past century, are human vs natural changes.
rdtsc 5y ago
> Considering any disagreement with the idea that gravity is a force would end your academic career Gravity is not a force. So thinking it is a force would end one’s academic career. See, even scientists can live in their own “bubbles” once things get complicated enough :-) Gravity is the effect of masses moving along geodesic lines in curved space-time. Edit: Since you probably don’t believe me https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU
- ars 5y ago
  That video is not persuasive - every single thing described there would apply to a charged object in an electrical field. So why is charge a force and gravity not?
  - rdtsc 5y ago
    Charge is not a force either! It’s a property of objects. In that respect you may be interested in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_char...
    - nsonha 5y ago
      You could've said "no such thing as a force" instead. I believe the person meant "electromagnetic force" instead of "charge". Question remains.
      - rdtsc 5y ago
        > I believe the person meant "electromagnetic force" instead of "charge". Question remains. But those are different things... The question is answered by stating that all the other forces are explained by the standard model, with gauge bosons mediating their interactions, while gravity is currently best explained using general relativity. The funny part is, of course, that we were ready to let go, without a severance package even I presume :-) those academics who did not believe that gravity is a force. Given that the leading theory states that gravity is indeed not a force.
- chaxor 5y ago
  I don't think there is a conflict between gravity being a force (and therefore having an associated gauge boson to mediate the force) and mass causing deformations in spacetime. IIRC, Einstein's Field Equation equates the stress energy tensor to the spacetime curvature - so I think logic is that if the stress energy tensor has quantized levels, then the spacetime curvature should as well.
  - rdtsc 5y ago
    But that's not the current most accurate working theory? We have not detected any gravitons yet. So the general theory of relativity is still the top contender, with some cracks showing in it as well. But the comment is tongue and cheek, of course, mostly illustrating how we were ready to fire any academic who didn't believe gravity is a force, when the leading explanation at the academic is the GR explanation. The idea being, is that perhaps some phenomena are multifaceted and complicated and climate study is the same. Moreover, it is compounded by a multitude of political and social interests trying to insert themselves into the discussion.
wolverine876 5y ago
If I seriously proposed that the Moon is made of blue cheese, I'd lose my job in astronomy. Does that bring into question the current research on the composition of the Moon? If you wrote on HN that CPUs are made of diamonds and pretzels, you'd get downvoted to oblivion. Does that call into question our belief that CPUs are made of silicon and metals (among other things)?

Considering any disagreement with the idea that gravity is a force would end your academic career in physics and an over 99% agreement with that idea, how meaningful is that?

Drybones 5y ago

1. The existence of gravity and it's proofs are vastly different than this topic and not comparable. 2. What gravity even is at a technical is still unknown and debated right now between a few theories. The question here isn't about if humans affect climate to any degree, because that would be an easy agreement, but is it actually significant and what percentage of the changes we measure, which so far are quite minute over the past century, are human vs natural changes.

rdtsc 5y ago

> Considering any disagreement with the idea that gravity is a force would end your academic career Gravity is not a force. So thinking it is a force would end one’s academic career. See, even scientists can live in their own “bubbles” once things get complicated enough :-) Gravity is the effect of masses moving along geodesic lines in curved space-time. Edit: Since you probably don’t believe me https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU

ars 5y ago
That video is not persuasive - every single thing described there would apply to a charged object in an electrical field. So why is charge a force and gravity not?
- rdtsc 5y ago
  Charge is not a force either! It’s a property of objects. In that respect you may be interested in the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_charged_particles_in_a_gravitational_field https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_radiation_of_char...
  - nsonha 5y ago
    You could've said "no such thing as a force" instead. I believe the person meant "electromagnetic force" instead of "charge". Question remains.
    - rdtsc 5y ago
      > I believe the person meant "electromagnetic force" instead of "charge". Question remains. But those are different things... The question is answered by stating that all the other forces are explained by the standard model, with gauge bosons mediating their interactions, while gravity is currently best explained using general relativity. The funny part is, of course, that we were ready to let go, without a severance package even I presume :-) those academics who did not believe that gravity is a force. Given that the leading theory states that gravity is indeed not a force.
chaxor 5y ago
I don't think there is a conflict between gravity being a force (and therefore having an associated gauge boson to mediate the force) and mass causing deformations in spacetime. IIRC, Einstein's Field Equation equates the stress energy tensor to the spacetime curvature - so I think logic is that if the stress energy tensor has quantized levels, then the spacetime curvature should as well.
- rdtsc 5y ago
  But that's not the current most accurate working theory? We have not detected any gravitons yet. So the general theory of relativity is still the top contender, with some cracks showing in it as well. But the comment is tongue and cheek, of course, mostly illustrating how we were ready to fire any academic who didn't believe gravity is a force, when the leading explanation at the academic is the GR explanation. The idea being, is that perhaps some phenomena are multifaceted and complicated and climate study is the same. Moreover, it is compounded by a multitude of political and social interests trying to insert themselves into the discussion.

wolverine876 5y ago

If I seriously proposed that the Moon is made of blue cheese, I'd lose my job in astronomy. Does that bring into question the current research on the composition of the Moon? If you wrote on HN that CPUs are made of diamonds and pretzels, you'd get downvoted to oblivion. Does that call into question our belief that CPUs are made of silicon and metals (among other things)?