Blinded with 'science'

[MorningGlory]

If gravity is a weak force, how come it hurts to fall over?

I hope you are joking.

It is considered weak because it takes a humongous amount of mass for it's affects to be noticed.

Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks - what's more, it makes sense. How are you on string theory?

(btw - I hope you're not suggesting I have - or I am - a humongous amount of mass).

How am I on string theory? Well . . . ummm . . . I know the theory exists. And I sort-of get the idea of what they say about it. . . . That's about it.

If you are asking if I agree or disagree with it - What do I know? I've never worked on the experiments.

But the subatomic particles do exist - muons, leptons, etc. There's enough out there to verify that at least. How they operate is a whole different ball of wax, though.

And no, I'm not suggesting you area humongous amount of mass. That would be the planet gravity pulls you towards.

My reason for raising string theory was a remark I saw associated with Professor Hawkins comments. I 'm afraid that I didn't keep the article as it's not an area that interests me greatly (probably because I don't understand it), but, from memory, Hawkins came to his conclusion having read "some elegant mathematics" in "an area of string theory".

Hawkins is certainly a deliberately provocative writer, but I suspect he chooses his words well. The counter-arguement might therefore need to rest on an understanding of the "elegant mathematics", rather than logic or rhetoric. Which counts me out completely - I'll stick to ToE.

Are you talking about Stephen Hawking....or someone else??

[DC10]

If gravity is a weak force, how come it hurts to fall over?

I hope you are joking.

It is considered weak because it takes a humongous amount of mass for it's affects to be noticed.

Actually, I didn't know that, so thanks - what's more, it makes sense. How are you on string theory?

(btw - I hope you're not suggesting I have - or I am - a humongous amount of mass).

How am I on string theory? Well . . . ummm . . . I know the theory exists. And I sort-of get the idea of what they say about it. . . . That's about it.

If you are asking if I agree or disagree with it - What do I know? I've never worked on the experiments.

But the subatomic particles do exist - muons, leptons, etc. There's enough out there to verify that at least. How they operate is a whole different ball of wax, though.

And no, I'm not suggesting you area humongous amount of mass. That would be the planet gravity pulls you towards.

My reason for raising string theory was a remark I saw associated with Professor Hawkins comments. I 'm afraid that I didn't keep the article as it's not an area that interests me greatly (probably because I don't understand it), but, from memory, Hawkins came to his conclusion having read "some elegant mathematics" in "an area of string theory".

Hawkins is certainly a deliberately provocative writer, but I suspect he chooses his words well. The counter-arguement might therefore need to rest on an understanding of the "elegant mathematics", rather than logic or rhetoric. Which counts me out completely - I'll stick to ToE.

Are you talking about Stephen Hawking....or someone else??

Whoops - sorry, I often do that - confused the name with Dawkins. I did indeed mean Stephen Hawking.

Edited October 14, 2010 by DC10

[DC10]

Or sub-atomic particles, for that matter. If gravity is a weak force, how come it hurts to fall over?

Well, you need to compare it with the other three forces of nature.

If gravity was as strong as electromagnetism, we would be squashed against the earth surface

immediately after birth.

Thanks for that.

Of course, I know what the 3 forces of nature are, but for the benefit of others - what's the 3rd? (Then perhaps we should get back to the thread).

[hayahtowb]

I don't like Hawking, because we don't have the tools to guage the things he likes to make-up. It's like saying 'dog years' when there is no such thing (and I like dogs).