[Red Badger]

I've been saying this for years..........;^)

[the invisib1e hand]

all I know is that life would be b-—tch without it.

[Fightin Whitey]

Gravity is certainly no friend of my emergent phenomenon.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Even in the Garden of Eden which presumably was entropically regenerated from supernatural sources, something had to make sure that birds could fly but man and animals (and even that pesky serpent) remained firmly on the ground :-)

[smokingfrog]

This should be obvious to anyone.

[Sacajaweau]

I wrote my thesis on this...1985....no big deal...

[NorCoGOP]

the effect of this redistribution looks like a force which we call gravity

Then May the Force Be With You

Hope I posted it before someone else....

[MNDude]

me not understand :(

[Paradox]

I am surprised that Verlinde didn’t look into this himself. Oopz.

[FredZarguna]

Attributing gravity to quantum coherence or ergodic effects has never really been anything more than a quantum duck (quark! quark!).

We're stuck: that's all there is to it. Pretending we're not stuck by claiming gravity is an emergent phenomenon is not helpful.

[newheart]

This causes matter [to] distribute itself

Gravity has sentience? And will?

[glorgau]

Hunh?

Title: Experiments Show Gravity Is Not an Emergent Phenomenon

From the article: Instead, it is an emergent phenomenon that merely looks like a traditional force.

Must be one of those spooky Quantum mechanical sentences.

[tophat9000]

I thought for a while that gravity is an effect of time distorter do to the oscillating motion of matter (remember the faster you go time slows down)

[Semper911]

for later

[concerned about politics]

I think it could be a little of both. Why couldn't the quantum, which is eveywhere and in everything, have enough mass, if evenly distributed, to hold things down? It would be sort of like living on a planet surrounded by undectable jello - an energy "aura".
I understand what Erik Verlinde is trying to say. From a quantum point of view, it makes sence. From a Neutonian point of view, it can't be put on film. (I can also see why these two fine fellows dissagree.)

[SparkyBass]

Gravitas, on the other hand...

[yarddog]

I have no idea what they are talking about but I did used to wonder how people on Star Trek always had plenty of gravity.

Of course it was probably no problem for Scotty.

[SpaceBar]

The idea that gravity comes about due to fundamental entropy arguments only created quite a stir on Slashdot when it first came out a year or so ago. Unlike the armwaving of cold fusion, this guy’s paper is on the net, and you can follow along provided you have enough math/physics to understand it.

[Lorianne]

Why is it that physicists can challenge conventional ‘consensus’ scientific theory, but climate scientists cannot?

[Errant]

As long as each particle is influenced by a statistically large number of other particles, gravity emerges.

[jnsun]

I do have a hard time believing that Gravity is a fundamental "traditional" force like the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, (so did Einstein) and am inspired by Verlinde's concept, but, like #14, objective science is what objective science is.

However even General Relativity is only a model, we've a long way to go.

But the AGW climate model is TOTAL BS, it's not even close.

Johnny Suntrade