This guy goes Five Million Watts:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45429661-five-million-watts
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07R6X973N
If there is a creator, he/she will no doubt be the one to explain gravity to us when the day of revelation finally comes! 
Regarding the discussion of "fine tuning"... my guesses are: 1) that either we live in a multiverse where universal constants vary and this one just happens to be one of the few that supports life or,
2) A more fundamental theory of physics will show that all of these "fine tuned" variables are obligated to have these values due to a deeper relationship between them, i.e. they are all multiples of some other, currently unknown fundamental value that may just be inherent to a 3D universe such as ours, or
3) It's a simulation and our physics is just a mathematically simplified version of "real" physics, so they had to hard-code the 'fine tuned' variables manually to simplify the simulation parameters. Maybe in the 'overworld' physics, the weak force actually does vary according to some function, but in the simulation they just hard-coded it to a single value. Or for those that are more a fan of religion than The Matrix, this is almost logically equivalent to "god did it". 🤷
2) A more fundamental theory of physics will show that all of these "fine tuned" variables are obligated to have these values due to a deeper relationship between them, i.e. they are all multiples of some other, currently unknown fundamental value that may just be inherent to a 3D universe such as ours, or
3) It's a simulation and our physics is just a mathematically simplified version of "real" physics, so they had to hard-code the 'fine tuned' variables manually to simplify the simulation parameters. Maybe in the 'overworld' physics, the weak force actually does vary according to some function, but in the simulation they just hard-coded it to a single value. Or for those that are more a fan of religion than The Matrix, this is almost logically equivalent to "god did it". 🤷
As described, LIGO would not have worked, I suggest you stop parroting bogus conjectures. On earth of a theory is not proven legit by how much you agree or like it, unlike how it is in your different/relative universe.
LIGO has not worked: Based on over 250.000 calculated observable "possibilities" based on assumptions, one "observation" was selected.
That is no science.
Has LIGO worked?
Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves in 1916 in his general theory of relativity.
A gravitational wave compresses spacetime in one direction and stretches it the other direction - both at right angles to the wave's direction. In this sense a gravitational wave is regarded as a transverse wave comprising of both peaks and troughs.
The fact that LIGO has detected gravitational waves from the merger of two neutron stars concurrently with the detection of electromagnetic radiation from the same event substantiates the reliablity of LIGO data. The event was not only 'heard'* in gravitational waves but also seen in light by dozens of telescopes on the ground and in space. This occurred on August 17, 2017 and represents the first time a cosmic event was observed with both gravitational waves and light.
*LIGO can translate the interference that gravitational waves cause in the laser beams bouncing between its detection mirrors into sound waves that we can hear. The result is a 'chirp' representing the arrival of the gravitational waves.
A list of observed and candidate gravitational wave events is there for all to see in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
1) Who's "they"? There is no "they" in science.
2) The weak force that overcame the initial entropy of the universe is gravity, and that is still being observed today.
;-)
Kiddis,
no one has ever seen a black hole or a neutron star! You watch too much TV or popular science literature.
You don't believe in a "Corona"-"virus", just because some RNA snippets, cause and origin unknown, have been arbitrarily inserted into a "virus" model, also arbitrarily constructed, including the claim that it is transmissible, infectious, pathogenic, lethal. Learn science: method criticism;-)
The first gravitational wave detection took place in September 2017.
Scientists had made predictions of the kind of 'space wobble' that a black hole collision would produce, and the wobble that LIGO saw was almost an exact match.
So, no, we haven't seen a black hole, exactly. But, thanks to LIGO, we're now damn sure they are real.
Scientists had made predictions of the kind of 'space wobble' that a black hole collision would produce, and the wobble that LIGO saw was almost an exact match.
So, no, we haven't seen a black hole, exactly. But, thanks to LIGO, we're now damn sure they are real.
Unacceptable argument. No one has ever seen an electron either yet scientists were able to develop electromagnetic theories anyway. We are discussing gravity and other fundamental forces in this thread, no need to bring irrelevant off topic stuff to the table.
This post is O-Level standard, but it is enough for me to link gravity with mass.
Newton's Law of Gravitation:
I consider the product mM as very tell-tale: it means an infinitesimally small mass dm, attracts another mass M with a force proportional to (dm)M. Summing over the entire value of m, this results in the product mM.
Why am I going through this? This means, mass contributes to the resultant force cumulatively. Basing on this simple obervation, gravity has to intimately depend on mass for any theory to explain it. In other words, if a particle is found to be responsible for mass (not inertia), the probabililty of that same particle of being responsible for the production of gravity, should be high, as least, this is what logic suggests.
Newton's Law of Gravitation:
Code:
F = GmM/r^2I consider the product mM as very tell-tale: it means an infinitesimally small mass dm, attracts another mass M with a force proportional to (dm)M. Summing over the entire value of m, this results in the product mM.
Why am I going through this? This means, mass contributes to the resultant force cumulatively. Basing on this simple obervation, gravity has to intimately depend on mass for any theory to explain it. In other words, if a particle is found to be responsible for mass (not inertia), the probabililty of that same particle of being responsible for the production of gravity, should be high, as least, this is what logic suggests.
Newton's law of universal gravitation is A-level standard where I come from! 🤓
A notable fact is that Newton's constant of proportionality, G, also features in Einstein's field equations relating to the geometry of spacetime.
A notable fact is that Newton's constant of proportionality, G, also features in Einstein's field equations relating to the geometry of spacetime.
Hasn't that particle already been found, i.e., the Higgs boson?
The fact that elementary particles have mass is regarded by physicists as being due to the existence of the Higgs field.
Each of the fields in physics has a corresponding exchange particle. Just as the EM field is associated with the exchange of virtual light particles (photons), the Higgs field is associated with the exchange of virtual Higgs particles (Higgs bosons).
Some elementary particles have a harder time travelling through a Higgs field than others, making them appear more massive.
Unfortunately, knowledge of the existence of a 'mass particle' gets us no closer to an understanding of gravity.
Astronomers have seen stars at the center of our galaxy orbiting - nothing. No light or radio waves there. Orbiting very fast. The nothing has a lot of mass to make stars of that size orbit that fast. Black hole fits the description of that situation.
Astronomers have seen jets of matter squirting out of the top and bottom of - nothing. They postulate the nothing squirting out the jets of matter is a black hole consuming a star. Webb telescope just saw one, rather spectacular in false color.
Many binary stars involve a visible sun orbiting nothing visible. That nothing visible could be a neutron star. Some of them pulse in radio waves, which was called a "pulsar". It is postulated the pulsars are neutron stars that are assymetric & spinning. This was published ~30 years ago, so I am not sure of the details.
