How real scientists react to General Relativity being trillions off in a prediction

Jennie&Tim on 30/3/2006 at 18:10

(http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html)

I recall a recent debate about how scientists would react to a major change in their theories; I'm not qualified to be critical of this article, but scientists seem more intrigued than headless-chickened about this considerable difference from the predictions in this data.

Uncia on 30/3/2006 at 18:17

That's fantastic. :)

Vigil on 30/3/2006 at 18:37

I think that gushing I just heard was the sound of a convention full of hard-scifi authors peeing themselves at thought of a scientifically plausible excuse for artificial gravity.

BlackCapedManX on 30/3/2006 at 19:10

But seemingly it would be "extra-gravity" instead of "anti-gravity." If I'm understanding this right, they are sort of assuming that mass particles are intrinsically tied with "gravitons" and as the superconductors are rotated stupendously fast somehow induces a gain in "mass" of the gravtions (but not the actual mass particles) due to the non-resistance in the superconductor. All this would due is create an excess gravitational feild, but seemingly without grounds for inverting it.

Then again physics and I took a very decisive split when physics one day said to me "hey! you gots to know calculus" so I could be very horrendously wrong in my assumption.

Vigil on 30/3/2006 at 19:19

There's always the idea of placing the gravity generator in front of the thing you want to move, causing the object to constantly fall towards the generator. Then I suppose you would have to apply some form of conventional propulsion to the gravity generator to actually get anywhere, but presumably the generator could have a much lower mass than the thing it's pulling, making that propulsion hopefully more efficient. (Assuming of course that the propulsion isn't completely fucked up by having a wopping great gravity field near it of course...I have no idea whether the physics for any of that would work, science and I having parted ways some time ago.)

But from a scifi perspective, a non-invertable gravity generator is still a useful contrivance to justify artificial gravity on spaceships or on low-gravity planetary installations.

BlackCapedManX on 30/3/2006 at 20:18

Oh fuck I hadn't though of either of those two things.

That actually helps me out a lot though, because I was trying to find a way to have colonies orbit Jupiter yet still be at a reasonable livable gravity, I was just gonna hope Jupiter's orbit would be great enough that you could have a low orbit at livable gravite. This actually could be stupidly more convenient. Yay physics.

Also the idea of propelling a gravity generator, while presumably sound and plausible, strikes me a stupendously funny. Almost like the "carriage in front of the horse" scenario, only you're riding the horse and the carrige has a 300hp engine in it.

Nicker on 3/4/2006 at 18:14

It could have implications for communications, especially over very large distances (interplanetary or interstellar). Gravity propagates instantaneously (awaits correction from the hardcore). Would it be possible to transmit information over carrier waves in an artificial gravitational field not unlike traditional AM and FM radio does?

Swiss Mercenary on 3/4/2006 at 18:32

I'm sure that quantum stuff will bite you in the ass sooner or later, if you follow that plan.

TF on 3/4/2006 at 18:47

Quote Posted by Nicker

Gravity propagates instantaneously

what

Nothing moves faster than light. If the sun vanished, it'd take a pretty large amount of time before our orbit would gonk.

Agent Monkeysee on 3/4/2006 at 19:42

Quote Posted by Nicker

Gravity propagates instantaneously (awaits correction from the hardcore).

Gravity propogates at the speed of light.