morgsboi Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 You're still wrong. Gravity is BY FAR the weakest of the four fundamental forces. I disagree. It would depend on the mass of the object and the distance from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) I disagree. It would depend on the mass of the object and the distance from it. ...there's no disagreement to it. Scale doesn't matter. The only reason you notice gravity is because we live on a huge rock orbiting an even bigger ball of gas. You're lucky atoms don't rely on gravity to keep them from flying apart. The proportionality constants are, what, 20 orders of magnitude apart? I thought it was even more than that. But I could be wrong. That depends on your definition of weak. Also, I never said magnetisum is weaker than gravity. Never. Magnetic force is the weaker force in all of the fundamental forces of world in terms of force exertion per mass. Yes, you did. Edited March 1, 2012 by A Tripolation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnStu Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ...there's no disagreement to it. Scale doesn't matter. The only reason you notice gravity is because we live on a huge rock orbiting an even bigger ball of gas. You're lucky atoms don't rely on gravity to keep them from flying apart. I thought it was even more than that. But I could be wrong. Yes, you did. "weaker" not weakest. Weaker of the other two forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgainstAllOdds Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) http://en.wikipedia....tal_interaction 4 fundamental forces... the link shows a chart with order of; Gravity -> Weak -> Magnetic -> Strong. Edited March 1, 2012 by AgainstAllOdds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgainstAllOdds Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 But I don't think gravity is the weakest, it affects everything equally in respect to where it is in relation to the sun.. but for the most part it's constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 "weaker" not weakest. Weaker of the other two forces. Bad grammar doesn't absolve you here as you specifically set that comparative in the context of all of the forces making it take the function of a superlative. But I don't think gravity is the weakest, it affects everything equally in respect to where it is in relation to the sun.. but for the most part it's constant. Well, you're wrong. Gravity is by far the weakest force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 So, you'd have to have a harmonic shield? Star Trek is right again! I wonder it this was swanont's idea. No, I don't recall ever suggesting using "harmonic" anything. I was responsible for the "Baryon Sweep", though. I disagree. It would depend on the mass of the object and the distance from it. The claim was "in terms of force exertion per mass" so the mass is removed from the comparison. Gravitational fields drops off as an inverse square. Magnetic fields, being dipoles (or higher-order multipoles) drop off as 1/r^3 or faster, so yes, it will depend on the distance. Gravity only seems to win because its other competitors either have a finite range or are repulsive as well as attractive, leading to no noticeable long-range effects. But the strength of coupling is not referring to the long-range effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ...there's no disagreement to it. Scale doesn't matter. The only reason you notice gravity is because we live on a huge rock orbiting an even bigger ball of gas. You're lucky atoms don't rely on gravity to keep them from flying apart. Please can you explain why scale doesn't matter? If we go with that, one could just say that the gravity of a marble has a stronger force than the SER 700 Electromagnet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Please can you explain why scale doesn't matter? If we go with that, one could just say that the gravity of a marble has a stronger force than the SER 700 Electromagnet. Scale does not matter because they both behave in the same way as you change the distance. If you look at the force between, for example, two protons, there is an attractive force due to gravity and a repulsive force due to the electromagnetic force. One of them is (IIRC) about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the other no matter what the separation because, in both cases the force falls as the square of the distance. Saying that something is weaker when it's 10^39 times bigger is so wrong it's funny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Scale does not matter because they both behave in the same way as you change the distance. If you look at the force between, for example, two protons, there is an attractive force due to gravity and a repulsive force due to the electromagnetic force. One of them is (IIRC) about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the other no matter what the separation because, in both cases the force falls as the square of the distance. Ah, that makes sense. I understand it now, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now