>>12011659>objects fall down regardless of their chargeIs a description of an object falling. It's explanation is comparable as a sort of "first sin" for mass. Mass inherently has it...and nobody can explain why. You have:
>mass causes gravity>gravity causes masswhich is circular.
>a model using two things that also have never been empirical being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravityWait, lets double check that real quick
>two things (space/time)that allegedly exist and cause something according to this theory
>being "warped" that causes the phenomena known as gravitySo even according to GR, gravity doesn't actually exist as a force. It's a description of something else doing something.
And lets not forget:
>the never verified, made up particle "graviton"So what you're "differentiating" in the first place has never been shown to actually exist.
>im not going to explain GR to you, just read gravitation you fucking moron>I need to explain GR in order explain gravityKind of like how you need "photons" to describe the photoelectric effect despite the fact that there's no such thing as a fucking photon particle. Well GR doesn't explain the cause of gravity either, it also describes it. Even the fucking Wikipedia article specifically calls it a description you stupid fuck. What's even more retarded is that like the photoelectric effect, it also needs the inclusion of more shit (space/time) that doesn't exist in order to describe it.
>you just used 4 different words in totally incoherent ways in a single sentence,You are an absolute professional at making descriptions and pointing out what you see. But see how nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about when you don't provide an explanation to what it is you're describing?
What words and how were they used incoherently? See, that is what the "explanation" would provide.
>>12011661There's always some baby ready to report me to the only janny on this popsci containment board
