Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

[gmark77]

Gravity is generally agreed to be a "force" but not in the classical sense. We are not yet aware of any "mediator" of the force like in most other forces (eg the photon mediating the electromagnetic force etc.) and it is probably a spacetime curvature. But it is still very common to refer to it as a force. Just look at pretty much every legitimate physics website and they will freely use the term "force".

It's perfectly reasonable to call gravity a "force" but recognize that may not be like the other fundamental forces. There's a reason F=Gmm/r^2 starts with an "F".

 

[Cypress]

no it isn't.

it's a force.

your shape talk is just a conceptualization.

you're so fucking dumb.

Okay, so you're saying me, NASA, and Einstein are wrong.... and you are correct.



The motion seen in a gravitational field is because of objects moving in geodesic paths in curved spacetime, not because some force is pushing them as in classical Newtonian mechanics.

 

[gmark77]

it's a force.

What Cy is trying to say is that it is likely NOT a force in the same sense as the other fundamental forces are. All of those are mediated by particles (the photon mediates the electromagnetic force, the gluon mediates the strong nuclear force, a couple of bosons mediate the weak nuclear force). Gravity appears to be curvature of space time and doesn't have a mediator.

But you are still correct: it is generally considered a "force". In fact if you look at just about any and every physics website they will call it a force. There's some newer articles out there that question the claim it is a force but they appear to be leveraging the same type of argument. It's a force just not in the classical sense of the other fundamental forces.

 

[Based Chad]

There's some newer articles out there that question the claim it is a force but they appear to be leveraging the same type of argument. It's a force just not in the classical sense of the other fundamental forces.

those article are gay like cypress.

 

[gmark77]

those article are gay.

Do make at least an attempt to carry on an interesting conversation. Thanks

 

[Based Chad]

Do make at least an attempt to carry on an interesting conversation. Thanks

I nuked this rhetorical dumbass into dust.

you're welcome.


this is interesting, WNBA.

 

[Cypress]

recognize that may not be like the other fundamental forces. There's a reason F=Gmm/r^2 starts with an "F".

The strictly correct and modern conception of gravity is by Einstein's field equations, not Newton's 17th century inverse square equation.

Einstein's field equation doesn't use the F symbol.

Gμν+Λgμν=κTμν

Einstein figured out that the solution to gravity was in geometry of spacetime, not in the classical forces of Newtonian mechanics.

Now, it is true that Newton's 17th century universal law still gives excellent approximations, as long as your not dealing with extremely high masses or extremely high speeds.

​

 

[Based Chad]

King Kong,

ain't got shit.

On me.

 

[IBDaMann]

they might have had their own individual theories.

Yep, like "When I drop something, it falls." The level of helpfulness is the issue.

often things are well know before the white man takes credit for it.

No science exists until it is created.

 

[Based Chad]

The strictly correct and modern conception of gravity is by Einstein's field equations, not Newton's 17th century inverse square equation.

Einstein's field equation doesn't use the F symbol.

Gμν+Λgμν=κTμν

Now, it is true that Newton's 17th century universal law still gives excellent approximations, as long as your not dealing with extremely high masses or extremely high speeds.

​

Yep, like "When I drop something, it falls." The level of helpfulness is the issue.

oh is helpfulness the issue?

No science exists until it is created.

sounds like a made up way to blow smoke up your own nerdy white imperial asshole..

 

[IBDaMann]

The strictly correct and modern conception of gravity is by Einstein's field equations, not Newton's 17th century inverse square equation.

Incorrect. I gave you the correct answer and wondered how long it would take you to reject it out of hand. You are the official timekeeper; how long did it take you?

Newton's model is correct and remains intact.

Now, it is true that Newton's 17th century universal law still gives excellent approximations,

Newton's law is exactly correct. You simply don't know how to express its context.

as long as your not dealing with extremely high masses or extremely high speeds.

... meaning what? I told you the answer.

 

[IBDaMann]

oh is helpfulness the issue?

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

sounds like a made up way to blow smoke up your own nerdy white imperial asshole..

It's fascism, plain and simple.

 

[Based Chad]

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


It's fascism, plain and simple.

when I described gravity I made up a story about a beaver and a moose antler.

I guess whites are better.

 

[Based Chad]

yet newton gets credit for such a similarly retarded story.

 

[Based Chad]

now who fell out of a coconut tree?

 

[Cypress]

Incorrect!

So, unable to refute my statement that the behavior of matter and energy is lawful and predictable, you instead elected to masturbate and play some word game about Issac Newton.


Newton's insight was not the law of gravity.

Aristotle knew gravity was lawful and cause-based.

Newton's insight was that there is a universal law of gravity that explains both motion on Earth and in the heavens, based on an inverse square relationship.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is no longer strictly correct, and has been replaced by the field equations of general relativity.

However, Newton's 17th century inverse square law still gives excellent approximations, and can be used in undergraduate physics classes, or for sending probes to Mars. Newton's inverse square law really starts to give incorrect answers in the presence of extremely dense mass and/or for objects moving at relativistic speeds.

 

[Based Chad]

So, unable to refute my statement that the behavior of matter and energy is lawful and predictable, you instead elected to masturbate and play some word game about Issac Newton.


Newton's insight was not the law of gravity.

Aristotle knew gravity was lawful and cause-based.

Newton's insight was that there is a universal law of gravity that explains both motion on Earth and in the heavens, based on an inverse square relationship.

Newton's law of universal gravitation is no longer strictly correct, and has been replaced by the field equations of general relativity.

However, Newton's 17th century inverse square law still gives excellent approximations, and can be used in undergraduate physics classes, or for sending probes to Mars. Newton's inverse square law really starts to give incorrect answers in the presence of extremely dense mass and/or for objects moving at relativistic speeds.

general relativity is a Jew plot to confuse the world with endless abstractions.

 

[Cypress]

general relativity is a Jew plot to confuse the world with endless abstractions.

Antisemitism is your touchstone when you start flailing.

The reason Newton's equation of universal gravitation is technically incorrect is because it treats space and time as static and unchanging, a mistake corrected by Einstein.

 

[Based Chad]

The reason Newton's equation of universal gravitation is technically incorrect is because it treats space and time as static and unchanging

i think that's the best approach for humans.

3:30 in Ohio will always be 3:30 in Ohio.

you're on some useless shit.

 

[gmark77]

general relativity is a Jew plot to confuse the world with endless abstractions.

What the literal fuck??????

No one needs your "insight", Adolf.