Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Ambiturner_sl said:
Gravity affecting light really isn't groundbreaking and was predicted by Relativity, so I'm not sure why that's such a hang up for you.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what I said.

furry_sl said:
We know gravity effects light/electromagnetism. There's been a shitload of experiments that prove it.
Click to expand...
What are you even arguing against? It sure as fuck aint me. I Have no hang ups what so ever with gravity effecting light/electromagnetism. As stated, it has been experimentally verified to the point where I believe it is undeniable.

My only issue is with the details. Though this fact has been verified, it does not verify the fact that the speed of light is a constant at every place and time in the whole universe. There are edge cases and plenty of experiments where the possibility of this 'law' breaking must be challenged. Does light that is gravitationally lensed lose speed or even a bit of frequency in the process. Is the speed of light consistent when emitted from extremely high gravitaitonal fields. Is the speed of light consistent throughout the solar system. The last one is the only one that has any testing at all, though it has hardly been rigorous enough to be an undeniable law of physics. These are just examples I can think up quickly on the fly. I think its wrong to claim we know the answers when we most certainly don't. I believe in science, I believe in the scientific process. Data is king, and until I have it I'm not afraid to say I'm ignorant.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
khalid_sl said:
Even if you are proved wrong, you don't accept it.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Requiring proof is not dogma, it's being rational.

I do agree to a point that scientists don't like being proven wrong. They sure as hell would love nothing more than proving everyone else wrong, though. That's a science orgasm
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Furry_sl said:
My only issue is with the details. Though this fact has been verified, it does not verify the fact that the speed of light is a constant at every place and time in the whole universe. There are edge cases and plenty of experiments where the possibility of this 'law' breaking must be challenged. Does light that is gravitationally lensed lose speed or even a bit of frequency in the process. Is the speed of light consistent when emitted from extremely high gravitaitonal fields. Is the speed of light consistent throughout the solar system. The last one is the only one that has any testing at all, though it has hardly been rigorous enough to be an undeniable law of physics. These are just examples I can think up quickly on the fly. I think its wrong to claim we know the answers when we most certainly don't. I believe in science, I believe in the scientific process. Data is king, and until I have it I'm not afraid to say I'm ignorant.
Click to expand...
Nothing we understand about light or gravity give us any reason to think gravity would have any effect on the speed light travels.
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
Furry_sl said:
Our models of electromagnetism are extraordinarily accurate... on earth, and there's one thing that doesn't change much on earth, nor can we manipulate it in laboratories: Gravity. That's my point, there's a lot more than earth to the universe.
Click to expand...
Furry, if we take the spectral lines of hydrogen from a gas lamp on a desk here on earth, they exactly match up with the spectral lines of hydrogen in the Sun's atmosphere. One has vastly more gravity.

This means that the electromagnetic force is the -same- here on earth as it is right outside the sun. If it was different those spectral lines would be different, as they are dependent on the energy levels in a atom which depend on the electromagnetic attraction between the electron and the nucleus.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
valishar_sl said:
Furry, if we take the spectral lines of hydrogen from a gas lamp on a desk here on earth, they exactly match up with the spectral lines of hydrogen in the Sun's atmosphere. One has vastly more gravity.

This means that the electromagnetic force is the -same- here on earth as it is right outside the sun. If it was different those spectral lines would be different, as they are dependent on the energy levels in a atom which depend on the electromagnetic attraction between the electron and the nucleus.
Click to expand...
I don't even know where to begin with this. First of all, gravitational pull most certainly DOES effect spectral lines, as has been determined with extremely specific emission lines on earth [pound-rebka]. The reason they are exactly the same here and on the sun is due to the fact that spectral lines are a bit fuzzy, and all spectral lines on the sun come from the upper atmosphere, which is gravitationally not that different than earth. Even if you went down to the surface of the sun, its what, twice the gravity of the earth? That's not enough to produce a statistically relevant answer, unless you created a very specific emission line. Perhaps you are referring to the spacing between lines always being constant even when shifted? I can talk on that subject if you want.

Unfortunately, the sun has no emission lines, since it is a black body. Actually, most shit in nature is black bodied. Natural bodies are extremely poor for this sort of experiment.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Black holes are a pretty poor basis for an argument. It's just making whoever disagrees try and prove a negative.

Of all the things that might happen when light moves at infinite curvature, slowing down isn't one of them.

Edit: Oh jesus just realized I'm arguing science with tad. My bad everyone.
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
Furry_sl said:
I don't even know where to begin with this. First of all, gravitational pull most certainly DOES effect spectral lines, as has been determined with extremely specific emission lines on earth [pound-rebka]. The reason they are exactly the same here and on the sun is due to the fact that spectral lines are a bit fuzzy, and all spectral lines on the sun come from the upper atmosphere, which is gravitationally not that different than earth. Even if you went down to the surface of the sun, its what, twice the gravity of the earth? That's not enough to produce a statistically relevant answer, unless you created a very specific emission line. Perhaps you are referring to the spacing between lines always being constant even when shifted? I can talk on that subject if you want.

Unfortunately, the sun has no emission lines, since it is a black body. Actually, most shit in nature is black bodied. Natural bodies are extremely poor for this sort of experiment.
Click to expand...
Well the main absorption area of the sun's atmosphere the photosphere and chromosphere and those extend what? 20,000 km or so I guess at the most. The surface gravity of the sun is 27.94g, And the sun's radius is 696,000km, so the gravity where these absorption lines are happening is at least an order of magnitude above earth's surface gravity.

pound-rebka proves that relativistic effects due to gravity happen yeah. It's measured across a gravitational gradient, which isn't what were discussing. You're saying electromagnetism is different in a different gravitational force, not gravitational blueshifting/redshifting (can't remember which atm) because of slower ticking clocks in GR. The experiment should be easy enough, take a measurement of the electromagnetic force here at sea level, take it in a weather balloon. You should get around a 1% difference in the magnitude of gravity. Just make your measurements really really precise and something should turn up.

If 1% ain't enough to notice a difference, and 2700% ain't enough to notice a difference, like we need millions upon millions greater gravitational intensities to alter EM. Then yeah I agree that would be hard to test.

Funny that you bring up an experiment which verifies a theory, which is basically dependent on the laws of physics remaining the same in every inertial reference frame. It was in fact Einsteins primary motivation for developing the theory in the first place. And that by the general equivalence principle, there's nothing especially unique about gravity which would cause something like that to happen.
 
P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
Furry the suns gravity on our on fuckin moon is larger than earth's. I don't know what else you're going on about but if seems hard to start off with something so obviously stupid.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
valishar_sl said:
If 1% ain't enough to notice a difference, and 2700% ain't enough to notice a difference, like we need millions upon millions greater gravitational intensities to alter EM.
Click to expand...
Not even sure why I'm continuing down this path with you, since we aren't even talking about something I proposed. My one and only claim is that we don't know enough, and to list some situations where we don't know enough. You're first statement here is wrong, the second one is mostly correct. In the specific example I gave, what if the scale of effect is inverted base-lined at the gravitational pull required to maintain a black hole? In that situation, the difference between the earth and the sun in noticeable effect would be well less than .0001%. Absorbption lines are way too fuzzy for something that accurate. You have to use emission lines, which nature doesn't give us.
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
tad10_sl said:
No conservatives point to Climategate emails showing climatologists attempting to use the innovative research methodology of "ganging up to shut up people who disagree with us" and at the NOAA's innovate research methodology of "altering historical weather data to better match our shitty models" to discredit climatologists. They also point to 1970's claims that we'd be freezing now, or 1990's claims that Florida would be under water. But hey, repeat whatever spin you want to make yourself feel better

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph


Also @ whomever was saying mass doesn't change: some models of the Universe predict eventual proton decay.
Click to expand...
The article is wrong:RealClimate: Noise on the Telegraph
Please cite a new source to back up your claims.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
tad10_sl said:
And you've got a whole bunch of Climate Predictions since the 1990s and earlier, none of which have happened.
Antarctica? Ice Cap still growing. Artic Ice Cap? It's back too baby.

Okay!
Click to expand...
Wow you really have no fucking clue what you're talking about
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
595
Ambiturner_sl said:
Wow you really have no fucking clue what you're talking about
Click to expand...
Wow. Another True Belieber who can't face facts. Why don't you, Itzena and Justin take a trip to go see the Antarctic Ice Cap that isn't supposed to be there according to your models but still manages to, you know, be there.

@1987 wrong thread

Edit: My bad for forgetting to stay logged in so I ended up reading Ambi's post, I forget I had Ambiturner blocked for a reason: sheer blinding idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.