Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
Okay, it is actually kind of cool.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/12/09
But what Hilbert proposed is that you can actually get MORE momentum out of your propellant than you put in, if your exhaust speed is above half the speed of light. Now usually what relativity giveth, relativity taketh away. But assuming that there aren't any gotchas that make this useless in practical terms (big assumption), it could point the way toward engine designs which require an order of magnitude less fuel than even fancy shmancy electrical engines.
10/12/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
@Jrsy Devil's Bright Idea®:
LHC or Death Star Laser Tunnel?
10/11/09
10/11/09
10/11/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Indeed gravity rules everything, it's what holds you to the Earth, and what holds the Earth in orbit around the Sun. And even cooler still, its pull (knowing no limitations of distance) even holds our Solar System in orbit around the Galactic center.
So what else can I say about gravity? Lots, but I think I've gone on long enough.
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
Also, if you pile up atoms, you get more gravity but if you piled up electrons you'd get more charge and the force of the charge would far outstrip the... Oh wait, you are high, aren't you?
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
If you're so unhappy, McDonald's is always hiring.
09/19/09
The scientists who fall out of love with science are the ones who talk like the original poster. The ones who sex it up. The ones that look for truths greater than the simple truth of understanding.
Having mentored many young scientists, I've found the most effective way to communicate the intoxicating excitement of discovery is to not overpromise, not oversell, but to enjoy the simple pleasure of understanding because that is all science is.
09/19/09
09/19/09
@The Lab: I believe this gentleman might disagree with you.
09/19/09
That's my boy!!!! Neil is the man!!!!
09/19/09
09/19/09
The understanding is exciting, for a certainty. I would add that there's no lack of awe or interest on the public's behalf. Maybe this is only more recently true with science and technology becoming such a key element in our daily lives, and something easily kept track of passingly over the 'net.
Giz itself is just one testament to the "cool" of science. I doubt the readership is 100% technicians, engineers and/or scientists.
09/19/09
So some people like to hear the news about what science has learned, but fewer people like to hear about actual science, as in how it is learned.
09/19/09
But then isn't science in the same boat as any other art of public interest? Whether music, cuisine or a scientific design, don't we all just gather in awe to reap the reward of the performance?
Space travel is cool. A map of gravitational contours would be cool. Its computation will be awesome. The people who do the work are brilliant. But you're right, I won't ever do this in particular myself. Reading and talking about it is also cool, though.
09/20/09
Fortunately for all of us, I was neither high nor incorrect, and I suspect your "
actual scientist" if s/he was an "actual scientist" would strongly disagree with you. If you're interested, here is the link to back me up: [tinyurl.com] (I'm not actually sure how to embed a link properly).
And I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this explanation has not been "Anthropomorphized" in the least. (It just talks about the limit of electric fields not the aforementioned lack of limit on gravity, but I'm sure a quick google search would satisfy your curiosity)
Finally to paraphrase FlyingChromeLazer:
Dr. Tyson would not approve... For Shame
09/20/09
I read your link and you seem to be saying that gravity "rules" because electric fields can get so strong they eventually literally create matter in the form of a positron and electron. Yeah that sounds weak. All I am saying is that with an object the size of the moon, gravity is still weak whereas it is much easier to create many orders of magnitude more force with far less matter if you use charge. The fact that gravity goes to infinity is interesting only if you had access to infinite mass.
You can continue to breathlessly claim that "gravity rulez" but here on Earth you are far better off using a force that can produce significant effects without needing a chunk of matter the size of a nation.
09/20/09
"Gravity is not only a unique in that it is extraordinarily weak force in comparison to its brethren, but also in the fact that it can be much, MUCH, stronger."
That statement is most certainly true. Please be more careful next time when you decide to "quote" some one, ensure that you are actually doing so.
And I do acknowledge that my original post was of course anthropomorphizing the subject. My statement: "And I'm sure you'll be pleased to note that this explanation has not been "Anthropomorphized" in the least." was meant as a double meaning. First that I obviously disagree with you that do so is a bad thing, and second that my source was not doing it.
For someone that claims to be so interested in the raw pursuit of knowledge without sexing it up (As you so eloquently put it in another post), you are amazingly uninterested in actual science.
You have missed the point all together. I wasn't just talking about the sun, or the moon. I was talking about Black Holes, and more specifically when I claimed that gravity holds our galaxy together, I was alluding to the super massive black hole and dark matter that are responsible for generating this gravity.
I feel as though I have covered my basis on this subject, and so this is my last post on this thread.
Thanks
09/18/09
Arthur C. Clarke invented satellite communications.
That's...that's about all I have to add.
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/19/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
09/18/09
:(
09/19/09