h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

oddly, these things are neither facts nor useless.

well done chaps and chapettes.

**************QUOTE************************************
All you're doing is using a theory to 'prove' a theory, which any serious scientist will tell you is a pointless activity as theory is not the same as fact.
There is also the theory that the speed of light is not actually constant, if I wanted I could use that to 'prove' that Einstien was completely wrong. But I won't, because until it is completely and unarguably proven one way or the other it would be pointless.
**************END QUOTE*******************************

Science is merely the building up of theories using previous theories anyway what I was saying was is exactly what enistein said in his special relativity.

Anyway any theory produced by mathematical methods MUST be correct if the original theory is correct.

Would you agree that nothing can travel faster than light?
Would you agree this ectends to information?
Would you accept that gravity can carry information?
If you accept all of theese you must accept that gravitional influence can travel no faster than the speed of light.

Gravitons DO exist in the same way that photons exist they are the particle form of something that is normally treated as wave like (THanks to wave particle duality).

Not sure about the credibility of this site, but it seems they know what they're talking about:

"Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target.
...gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat spacetime with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2 x 1010 c."

I also found a bunch of reports of some experiment which proved that gravity did in fact travel at the speed of light, but next to those were reports of several physicists who called the experiments "nonsense".

So, for now at least, we can assume that I was wrong. Congradulations on your Kit-Kat.

<>
No. A theory (synonyms: hypothesis, guess), by it's very nature, cannot be 100% correct.

<>
No, this has yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

<>
No, information itself is not a tangible resource.

<>
No, gravity is not a storage media.


*Happily munches on KitKat*

Did I mention that the camels that were brought to Texas were ill adapted for the rough rocky terrain of West Texas. However their soft padded feet are very well adapted for the sandy soils of the Australian outback and are less damaging to local flora than hooved animals.

<>
No. A theory (synonyms: hypothesis, guess), by it's very nature, cannot be 100% correct.
***This is true which is why I said "If the original theory is correct"
anway we cannot know anything for certain.
<>
No, this has yet to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
***Which part do you object to E=MC^2 or Intergration?

<>
No, information itself is not a tangible resource.
***You will not be able to find a physicist that does not think that GR extends to information you are basically in disagreement with modern physics (well maybe not qatum mechanics).

<>
No, gravity is not a storage media. Anyway which of the four forces do you belive can carry information then?

Surley the force has some information about the body it came from most notably Mass/(Distance away)^2

<>
If it's still a theory then it's not necessarily correct.

<>
I refer to the theory (and it is a pretty strong theory) that the speed of light is not actually constant.

<>
Well, quantum *is* the field I have the most interest in. Remind me what GR is...

<>
The way you phrased the question suggested that you believe gravity to be a storage medium, when what it appears you meant was 'Can we extrapolate any information about the body generating the gravity using the gravity alone?'


By the way: I have no scientific qualifications, I read about physics purely for personal interest (am I normal?). I am not saying you are completely wrong, it's just that I'm a natural sceptic and am DEFINITELY against the blind acceptance of theory as fact.

The camel and the Sphinx... Tee hee...

Hmm I can see Thursday's KitKat is in danger of being awarded. And it's a 2 finger one, hurry up 10 o'clock.

<>

Yes. If somebody dropped something from up high, and it landed on my head, for example. Gravity would be carrying me the information that some right bar steward had just thrown something at me.

Likewise Gravity can carry information about birds, in particular their diets.

Does gravity carry information about submerged regurgitating sharks?

nope physically impossible, apparantly.

that would have to be sonar.

It is a fact that dolphins have such a well defined sonar ability that they can defferentiate between a floating flip flop (washed out to sea as the tide came in on the beach for example) and a small dead fish from over 1500m away.

Pretty much all scientists subscribe to the "null hypothesis" method of investigation and experiment. What this means is that we constantly seek to disprove our hypothesis. This in turn means that we cannot prove something with a theory, or often even with years of experimental data, but merely prove we are wrong OR fail to prove we are wrong. Failing to prove we are wrong does not mean we are right!

Hell yeah!
*Does the churny butter dance*

Can I have another KitKat? I'll share it with matt...

Too late it's gone 10 o'clock and I'm on the outside of it. More prizes tomorrow, keep up the good work.

I'm on holiday tomorrow so I'll have to pass the mantle of responsibility onto another... any volunteers for standing up against theories that many scientists believe are wrong while I'm away?

There's a KitKat in it, if we can prove it exists.

Elephants can't jump (underwater).

White men can't jump (except for Woody Harrelson)

GR=General Relativty. I.e. the standard model of physics. I think it is odd that you are interested in what q. mechanics says about the world and yet do not readily accept what relatvity says. There is far more evdience to suggest GR is right for this kind of thing than there is evidence against it.

Anyway back on topic: In california it is illegal to threten a butterfly.