Gravity, the weak force. Or so they say.

Could gravity be more of an effect than a cause? Let's say that the fabric of space is like neutrinos, near mass less. Neutrinos were theorized then later proven when they were converted to energy.
Whenever they show Einstein's theory of warped space they show a sphere laying on a cloth with grid lines. The cloth and grid lines are bent or warped by the weight of the sphere. Even though it's a 3 dimensional picture it's still a 2 dimensional depiction. Now if you had a picture of a sphere and lines of the fabric pinched in at 64,800 degrees that would be 3 dimensional. Now the warped lines would be warped tighter according to the mass of the sphere rather than the size of the sphere. So a neutron star would have a stronger pinch or range of pull than our sun which is much larger. It's accepted that if you place two small objects near each other in space they will eventually come together as long as there are no outside forces. Could this near mass less fabric be so large that it could be the dark matter that has eluded physicists for so long?

Could gravity be more of an effect than a cause? Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I thought this was going to be about boobs.

Now boobs. I've had the extreme fortune to have beheld and suckled the pinnacle of breasts twice in my life. I am the Don Quixote of boobs now.
Not going to happen I'm afraid.

Now I have been told many times that I have the perfect package down below.
But women are different then men. I cant walk around with my fly down and get takers.

Now I have been told many times that I have the perfect package down below. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

On second thought.... lets not go there.

On second thought.... lets not go there. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So are you saying that you thought about it once?

LMAOROTFL!

So are you saying that you thought about it once? Originally Posted by Ansley

No I was going to make some smartass remark about his reportedly "perfect package" and then thought better of the idea.

Could gravity be more of an effect than a cause? Let's say that the fabric of space is like neutrinos, near mass less. Neutrinos were theorized then later proven when they were converted to energy.
Whenever they show Einstein's theory of warped space they show a sphere laying on a cloth with grid lines. The cloth and grid lines are bent or warped by the weight of the sphere. Even though it's a 3 dimensional picture it's still a 2 dimensional depiction. Now if you had a picture of a sphere and lines of the fabric pinched in at 64,800 degrees that would be 3 dimensional. Now the warped lines would be warped tighter according to the mass of the sphere rather than the size of the sphere. So a neutron star would have a stronger pinch or range of pull than our sun which is much larger. It's accepted that if you place two small objects near each other in space they will eventually come together as long as there are no outside forces. Could this near mass less fabric be so large that it could be the dark matter that has eluded physicists for so long? Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Once after hearing one of his colleagues present a new idea in theoretical physics, Enrico Fermi remarked, "That's not right. That's not even wrong!"

-Ww

I think he would say that because of elitist norms of the day.
Would he say that today? I think not.

I think he would say that because of elitist norms of the day.
Would he say that today? I think not. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

I don't know enough about the circumstances in which he made the purported remark to judge whether or not it had anything to do with elitist norms nor about the his personality to know if he would say something similar today.

Anyway, more to the point of your gravity scenario as described above, it is my impression that while popular accounts (and even professional qualitative appraisals) of physics often employ the kinds of images and metaphors you mention [e.g., a sphere laying on a(n elastic) cloth], it is not possible to develop or put forward a new idea in that "language", not at least without being **extremely** precise, and ideally explicitly mathematical, about what you mean by qualitative phrases such as "the fabric of space", etc. Absent such a precise meaning, no one can really say whether the idea is right...or even wrong...can't really be sure what it means at all. In short, you are using the language in which physicists talk to the public (and reporters), not the language in which they actually work and communicate with each other.

This doubtless sounds more critical than I intend; all I am really saying is that I doubt that what you wrote can be evaluated one way or the other expressed in that way, even if you have something extremely clear/precise in mind yourself.

-Ww

I do and you are also correct. Please understand me that I do not perceive you as critical in the least. I was trying to base it as best I could.

Actually, I'd favor hijacking this thread onto the topic of boobs and sex in zero gravity (free-fall, actually) environments. The former should be incredible to behold, and the latter should offer many amazing and wonderful new possibilities. Space borne porn is surely a new frontier begging to be opened. It staggers my mind to contemplate what might be...and I bet it could pay for a far more ambitious manned (and womanned) space program than we have today.

-Ww

If you just do all your physics at the Planck temperature in Plank units, it all becomes clear.

Hasn't sex pushed most modern developments -- VCR's DVD Internet. Why not space.

Hasn't sex pushed most modern developments -- VCR's DVD Internet. Why not space. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Imagine, certain among us wouldn't have to worry about hearing her shout, "You're crushing me."

(Or scarier, some of us fellas wouldn't have to exclaim the same....):wavetowe l2: