So, anti-gravity...

[MrFalconfly]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

 

[barbzilla]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

 

[Caedite Eos]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

That's just not true, and forgive me for saying this, but it's clear that you don't know enough about this subject to be saying what you are. You seem not to be familiar with the concept of a zero REST MASS, which a photon MUST have (and this can be logically deduced, since a body with a non-zero rest mass cannot possibly travel at lightspeed (c), or its mass would become arbitrarily large and the amount of energy required to accelerate it would asymptotically approach infinity along with its mass.

Oh and buddy... Photons don't participate in anything related to the Higg's mechanism, sorry. Photons all follow null geodesics through 4-space, but that 4-space is deformed (i.e. Gravity). It's deformed to the point of being a "hole" in the case of a black hole, but that is by no means the only time Relativity is an issue for Light. Whole galaxies act to gravitationally lens relatively distant objects from a given observer; the mass doesn't have to be compact.

The most common though... gravitational redshift. How do you even talk about something like a black hole when you must not understand that? What do you think a "Black" hole is after all? It's an exponentially redshifting hypersurface with a mystery center.

 

[barbzilla]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

That's just not true, and forgive me for saying this, but it's clear that you don't know enough about this subject to be saying what you are. You seem not to be familiar with the concept of a zero REST MASS, which a photon MUST have (and this can be logically deduced, since a body with a non-zero rest mass cannot possibly travel at lightspeed (c), or its mass would become arbitrarily large and the amount of energy required to accelerate it would asymptotically approach infinity along with its mass.

Oh and buddy... Photons don't participate in anything related to the Higg's mechanism, sorry. Photons all follow null geodesics through 4-space, but that 4-space is deformed (i.e. Gravity). It's deformed to the point of being a "hole" in the case of a black hole, but that is by no means the only time Relativity is an issue for Light. Whole galaxies act to gravitationally lens relatively distant objects from a given observer; the mass doesn't have to be compact.

The most common though... gravitational redshift. How do you even talk about something like a black hole when you must not understand that? What do you think a "Black" hole is after all? It's an exponentially redshifting hypersurface with a mystery center.

I'm sorry if my sophomore physics is rusty, but jesus do you need to take it down a notch. When I was in school the higgs field was still a theory and they had just started on the particle accelerator. I made a mistake, which was reinforced by numerous people making similar mistakes when I googled the subject. I should have done my due diligence and checked their sources, but I was only posting about photons as an afterthought to the actual point of the thread (which you seem to have missed in your drive to be rude). If you have forgotten the point of the thread was to ask what would happen if an object was suddenly removed from the law of gravity. Now, I knew that photons were affected by gravity to some small extent, but it still served the damn purpose of giving the guy an idea of what something would be like if gravity didn't affect it.

Either way, it seems you are more inclined to argue than engage in a theoretical debate on something that is currently outside of our scientific grasp, so I'm not going to bother replying to you any further unless you adjust your attitude. That aside, I apologize for not double checking my facts on a subject I haven't studied for 12 years.

 

[Caedite Eos]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

That's just not true, and forgive me for saying this, but it's clear that you don't know enough about this subject to be saying what you are. You seem not to be familiar with the concept of a zero REST MASS, which a photon MUST have (and this can be logically deduced, since a body with a non-zero rest mass cannot possibly travel at lightspeed (c), or its mass would become arbitrarily large and the amount of energy required to accelerate it would asymptotically approach infinity along with its mass.

Oh and buddy... Photons don't participate in anything related to the Higg's mechanism, sorry. Photons all follow null geodesics through 4-space, but that 4-space is deformed (i.e. Gravity). It's deformed to the point of being a "hole" in the case of a black hole, but that is by no means the only time Relativity is an issue for Light. Whole galaxies act to gravitationally lens relatively distant objects from a given observer; the mass doesn't have to be compact.

The most common though... gravitational redshift. How do you even talk about something like a black hole when you must not understand that? What do you think a "Black" hole is after all? It's an exponentially redshifting hypersurface with a mystery center.

I'm sorry if my sophomore physics is rusty, but jesus do you need to take it down a notch. When I was in school the higgs field was still a theory and they had just started on the particle accelerator. I made a mistake, which was reinforced by numerous people making similar mistakes when I googled the subject. I should have done my due diligence and checked their sources, but I was only posting about photons as an afterthought to the actual point of the thread (which you seem to have missed in your drive to be rude). If you have forgotten the point of the thread was to ask what would happen if an object was suddenly removed from the law of gravity. Now, I knew that photons were affected by gravity to some small extent, but it still served the damn purpose of giving the guy an idea of what something would be like if gravity didn't affect it.

Either way, it seems you are more inclined to argue than engage in a theoretical debate on something that is currently outside of our scientific grasp, so I'm not going to bother replying to you any further unless you adjust your attitude. That aside, I apologize for not double checking my facts on a subject I haven't studied for 12 years.

The only thing you did wrong, is the thing you didn't apologize for, and that's holding forth on a complicated subject that you haven't studied for more than a decade. Don't spread bullshit, it takes more work to get rid of it than it does for you to spread it.

Simple. No need to spend three paragraphs being huffy because you thought you knew a lot, and don't on a subject that probably doesn't have any bearing on your life anyway. Why that upsets you so much... eh.

 

[barbzilla]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

That's just not true, and forgive me for saying this, but it's clear that you don't know enough about this subject to be saying what you are. You seem not to be familiar with the concept of a zero REST MASS, which a photon MUST have (and this can be logically deduced, since a body with a non-zero rest mass cannot possibly travel at lightspeed (c), or its mass would become arbitrarily large and the amount of energy required to accelerate it would asymptotically approach infinity along with its mass.

Oh and buddy... Photons don't participate in anything related to the Higg's mechanism, sorry. Photons all follow null geodesics through 4-space, but that 4-space is deformed (i.e. Gravity). It's deformed to the point of being a "hole" in the case of a black hole, but that is by no means the only time Relativity is an issue for Light. Whole galaxies act to gravitationally lens relatively distant objects from a given observer; the mass doesn't have to be compact.

The most common though... gravitational redshift. How do you even talk about something like a black hole when you must not understand that? What do you think a "Black" hole is after all? It's an exponentially redshifting hypersurface with a mystery center.

I'm sorry if my sophomore physics is rusty, but jesus do you need to take it down a notch. When I was in school the higgs field was still a theory and they had just started on the particle accelerator. I made a mistake, which was reinforced by numerous people making similar mistakes when I googled the subject. I should have done my due diligence and checked their sources, but I was only posting about photons as an afterthought to the actual point of the thread (which you seem to have missed in your drive to be rude). If you have forgotten the point of the thread was to ask what would happen if an object was suddenly removed from the law of gravity. Now, I knew that photons were affected by gravity to some small extent, but it still served the damn purpose of giving the guy an idea of what something would be like if gravity didn't affect it.

Either way, it seems you are more inclined to argue than engage in a theoretical debate on something that is currently outside of our scientific grasp, so I'm not going to bother replying to you any further unless you adjust your attitude. That aside, I apologize for not double checking my facts on a subject I haven't studied for 12 years.

The only thing you did wrong, is the thing you didn't apologize for, and that's holding forth on a complicated subject that you haven't studied for more than a decade. Don't spread bullshit, it takes more work to get rid of it than it does for you to spread it.

Simple. No need to spend three paragraphs being huffy because you thought you knew a lot, and don't on a subject that probably doesn't have any bearing on your life anyway. Why that upsets you so much... eh.

I'm not going to give in to your attempted prodding and respond emotionally. I didn't apologize for it because the comments were made on a video game forum while discussing an impossible scenario. If anyone is reading my post and studying it as hard fact on a video game forum, then that is their problem. Now why you continue to be so upset by this is beyond me, but I'm done discussing it with you. You can either opt to get over it and move on, or waste some more energy being upset by it. It is your choice.

 

[Too Many Secrets]

Inertial force wouldn't keep you on the Earth if it was possible to suddenly switch off the effects of gravity for some object because forces act in a straight line. So yes you'd keep travelling at the horizontal speed you were already travelling due to the rotation of the Earth but.

That would probably because there isn't an "inertial force", inertia is momentum.

It wouldn't be the same as suddenly shooting up into the air, instead you'd gradually drift upwards you continue off at a tangent to the Earth's motion, essentially the Earth would have rotated out from under you. I'd expect the local effects of wind and friction to make a big difference to this though so it's hard to say... and you almost certainly couldn't make something that's anti-gravity anyway.

Probably, if not for drag. If negating gravity removes the concept of mass entirely, rather than making one neutrally bouyant, they'd move away, and at speed. But then the object would have to be both not subject to gravity, and the surrounds would have to be to have bouyancy. Which isn't exactly realistic either.

If only everything was a spherical object in a vaccuum not subject to gravity!

The idea of something having no gravity is so outside the way that the universe works that we can only really guess at how an object with "zero gravity" or "anti-gravity" would work at all. Inertia isn't a force... but then neither is gravity. Statements that are informative but technically inaccurate can be very useful sometimes.

It isn't that outlandish. Photons are particles and yet they are not affected by gravity, this is primarily due to the higgs field though (at least that is what we believe, it is still being tested further). To get the best idea of how something would act without gravity, imagine that object as pure energy and you will have a fair understanding of the forces at work.

Photons definitely are affected by gravity.

That is what makes gravitational lensing.

And while photons don't have rest-mass, they definitely have energy, which thanks to Einstein we know is equivalent with mass (E=M*C^2).

So because Photons have energy, and momentum, they are affected by gravity.

From a technical aspect you are correct, however the higgs field negates all but the tiniest minutia of gravity's effect on a photon. In fact it is so hard for gravity to affect a photon that you have to go into the theory of special relativity to explain gravity's effect on it (E?=m?c⁴+p?c?). However, for all intents and purposes (outside of visiting a black hole) a photon is without mass and thanks to the higgs field it is practically unaffected by gravity.

I had just simplified the theory for the people who were trying to get an idea of what zero gravity would be like, as well as addressing the issue that was brought up about matter without gravity not appearing in nature.

That's just not true, and forgive me for saying this, but it's clear that you don't know enough about this subject to be saying what you are. You seem not to be familiar with the concept of a zero REST MASS, which a photon MUST have (and this can be logically deduced, since a body with a non-zero rest mass cannot possibly travel at lightspeed (c), or its mass would become arbitrarily large and the amount of energy required to accelerate it would asymptotically approach infinity along with its mass.

Oh and buddy... Photons don't participate in anything related to the Higg's mechanism, sorry. Photons all follow null geodesics through 4-space, but that 4-space is deformed (i.e. Gravity). It's deformed to the point of being a "hole" in the case of a black hole, but that is by no means the only time Relativity is an issue for Light. Whole galaxies act to gravitationally lens relatively distant objects from a given observer; the mass doesn't have to be compact.

The most common though... gravitational redshift. How do you even talk about something like a black hole when you must not understand that? What do you think a "Black" hole is after all? It's an exponentially redshifting hypersurface with a mystery center.

I'm sorry if my sophomore physics is rusty, but jesus do you need to take it down a notch. When I was in school the higgs field was still a theory and they had just started on the particle accelerator. I made a mistake, which was reinforced by numerous people making similar mistakes when I googled the subject. I should have done my due diligence and checked their sources, but I was only posting about photons as an afterthought to the actual point of the thread (which you seem to have missed in your drive to be rude). If you have forgotten the point of the thread was to ask what would happen if an object was suddenly removed from the law of gravity. Now, I knew that photons were affected by gravity to some small extent, but it still served the damn purpose of giving the guy an idea of what something would be like if gravity didn't affect it.

Either way, it seems you are more inclined to argue than engage in a theoretical debate on something that is currently outside of our scientific grasp, so I'm not going to bother replying to you any further unless you adjust your attitude. That aside, I apologize for not double checking my facts on a subject I haven't studied for 12 years.

The only thing you did wrong, is the thing you didn't apologize for, and that's holding forth on a complicated subject that you haven't studied for more than a decade. Don't spread bullshit, it takes more work to get rid of it than it does for you to spread it.

Simple. No need to spend three paragraphs being huffy because you thought you knew a lot, and don't on a subject that probably doesn't have any bearing on your life anyway. Why that upsets you so much... eh.

I'm not going to give in to your attempted prodding and respond emotionally. I didn't apologize for it because the comments were made on a video game forum while discussing an impossible scenario. If anyone is reading my post and studying it as hard fact on a video game forum, then that is their problem. Now why you continue to be so upset by this is beyond me, but I'm done discussing it with you. You can either opt to get over it and move on, or waste some more energy being upset by it. It is your choice.

"Only a fool persists in his fault." -Cicero