It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. This goes against the scientific method.>Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. > -Nikola Tesla
Anonymous
>>12525318 do you ever wonder where you will end up in a few decades if you're still alive? do you think you will become a mentally ill schizo?
Anonymous
>>12525318 Is there a conversation you wanted to have here or did you just come to spout your schizo bullshit?
Anonymous
>>12525318 The quantum bait was thought out better, this one is mediocre
Anonymous
>>12525324 >>12525326 >>12525330 It's all density levels, brothers. You may as well substitute gravity with magic.
See my thread:
>>12525151 Anonymous
Quoted By:
Who cares what Tesla said? He wasn't a physicist and didn't even know much math. He was an electrical engineer.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 we just had a convo bout anti gravity yesterday and now people forget about it? also that pic made me laugh.
Anonymous
>>12525318 >It's an assumption derived from no direct observation Gravity is name for the observation that things fall when dropped. You are free to disagree on the exact explanations of gravity and how it works, but saying that gravity is false or fake makes you look incredibly stupid.
Anonymous
>>12525318 >It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. This goes against the scientific method. Apple falls onto Newton’s head. Newton observes this event and figures that there must be something that causes things to fall to the ground. Names it gravity.
> Conceptually speaking, the idea of a gravity is only consistent in the scenario of a black hole of nothingness that sucks everything up of material substance indefinitely. No, it’s what causes objects on earth to fall to the ground.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 Just say you are a flat earther bro. The only people who are against gravity are flat eathers.
Anonymous
>>12525504 >>12525508 Gravity assumes that matter magically attracts other matter. Nonsense. Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air. A hot air balloon has a natural upward moving force because hot air is less dense.
Anonymous
>>12525562 The magnitude of buoyant forces relates to the volume of objects for a given mass. The magnitude of gravity forces depends only on mass. Also buyoancy is an effect of gravity, there are is no buyoancy in free fall or in orbit.
Anonymous
>>12525508 LOL! If an apple moves towards the ground, it is not "gravity," it
means the apple broke. Sheesh! Can't you understand anything that
hasn't been spoon-fed you by the gravitationalist pseudo-cult?
Gravitationalists have used millions of fake "experiments" to convince
the military and Congress of the existence of this so-called "force,"
so that they can net hundreds of billions of dollars a year on
crackpot devices such as airplanes, helicopters, and missiles, that
supposedly are exempt from their "universal" law of gravity because
they exert an "opposing" force.
Any moron can see straight through the gravitationalists' bizarre
claims. The gravitationalists say there is a force between the earth
and my computer moving it toward the center of the earth. Guess what
... the computer is STILL HERE.
But in case you want a mathematical proof, try this. The
gravitationalists say that the height of an object above the ground
will be x = h - 1/2 g t^2, with weight = mobject * g, and weight =
Gravconstant * mearth * mobject / distance^2. This means that the
height x = h - 1/2 Gravconstant * mearth * t^2 / distance^2. But the
same equations show that the earth will be falling toward the object
with height x = h - 1/2 Gravconstant * mobject * t^2 / distance^2.
Are there two different distances between the earth and the object?
Apparently the gravitationalists think so.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525598 With such obvious mathematical proof against the gravitationalists,
you might wonder why no one has spoken up yet. The fact is, that many
have, but that the powerful gravitationalist forces prevent them from
being heard. When an experiment that would disprove gravity is
suggested, they do not allow it to be funded, or if it did have funds,
they would try to stop it from being carried out anywhere, and if it
is carried out they will make sure that the results are never
published and certainly that the experiment is never reproduced. And
so they can confidently tell the unwitting populace that "no
experiment has ever disproven gravity," and after thorough literature
searches no one can find anything but a few isolated experimenters,
whose names the gravitationalists had dragged thoroughly through the
mud a long time ago. And so people being gullible, and not taking the
initiative to think or experiment for themselves, blindly accept the
gravitationalist dogma as truth, and go about their day-to-day
business, while the gravitationalist cabal sinks its teeth deeper and
deeper into every taxpayer's pocket.
Isn't it a shame that science has sunk so low?
Anonymous
>>12525587 Nonsense. An object sinks in water because it's denser than water. It's all so simple.
Anonymous
>>12525318 huh? Haven't we literally measured gravitational waves from neutron stars? I thought our understanding is that gravity isn't real, it's just our abstracted mathematical understanding of spacetime.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 19:50:24 No. 12525661 Report >>12525318 >It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. Not exactly. It's a directly observable phenomena but the mode by which it happens or is caused is unknown.
"mass attracts mass"-correct description
"because of the force of gravity"-incorrect conclusion based on no evidence. Nomenclatures sake so that "mass attracts mass" doesn't sound circular when repeated by (charisma science man on the television).
>Conceptually speaking, the idea of a gravity is only consistent in the scenario of a black hole of nothingness that sucks everything up of material substance indefinitely. Which is also the reason why black holes don't exist either. Another meme we made up by looking at *everything that a blackhole isn't* in order to define what it is. Just like we did with space and time.
>>12525346 "Density" of what?
>>12525508 >apple evaporates in 2 weeks Too bad the virgin didn't have that much attention span to make that observation
>Names it gravity. I too can come up with multiple words for an unexplained phenomena. Any dungeons and dragons player can too.
>No, it’s what causes objects on earth to fall to the ground. "Rock go to rock, me grug me smart"
Well that's a description, not an explanation. What causes the rock to go to another one, or rather each other? What is each mass mutually being accelerated towards?
Anonymous
>black holes don't exist >gravity doesn't exist
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 20:01:56 No. 12525699 Report >>12525681 Okay, want to play it that way? I'll take it back and leave it open for discussion.
If Gravity and black holes exist, then prove they do. Preferably by testing them in an experiment to show they're empirical in the first place.
Anonymous
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 20:11:47 No. 12525733 Report >>12525711 >digitally altered representation of yet another experiment that "finds" and "studies" a blackhole by measuring everything that it isn't. lol
>Wikipedia article listing all the ways gravity has be described It's described, I get it. Now tell me the cause, dipshit. It's like describing all the ways a unicorn can exist and does exist, yet you never actually show me the unicorn.
>male-female hornshift causes the bending of fairy particles Where's the fucking unicorn? All I see is a jackass.
Anonymous
>>12525601 If I drop two balls, both with different diameters but equal densities, they fall at an equal rate. They also do not immediately start at terminal velocity but have to accelerate.
Why is this if it's based on density? All objects should fall at rates proportionate to their density, and they should fall at maximum velocity - there should be no acceleration.
Anonymous
>>12525733 >digitally altered representation of yet another experiment that "finds" and "studies" a blackhole by measuring everything that it isn't. Ok schizo, you can "digitally alter" i.e blur your monitor screen, doesn't mean what you are seing is not there.
>It's described, I get it. Now tell me the cause This is a philosophical question, the task of physics is not to say how nature is, but about what we can say about nature. There are experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicors, you are just throwing False equivalence out of your ass here.
>All I see is a jackass. You are projecting.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525598 kek, making it seem like you just got motion equations off wikipedia without even taking one physics class, epic troll bro
Anonymous
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 20:32:54 No. 12525797 Report >>12525761 >Ok schizo, you can "digitally alter" i.e blur your monitor screen, doesn't mean what you are seing is not there. It also doesn't prove "what it is" that's there. Other than a blurred fucking image anyway. So I guess you did prove something. That a blurred orange circle exist. What does that have to do with a black hole?
>This is a philosophical question, No, it's a scientific one. I am asking for empirical evidence of your claims. You are not providing it, so fuck off.
>the task of physics is not to say how nature is, but about what we can say about nature. Oh well I'm talking about science here.
>There are experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicors, AND WHERE IS THE EXPERIMENT FOR "GRAVITY" YOU STUPID FUCK? You're deriding because you're bereft of an answer, just as space and time are bereft of properties that allow it to do the ass backwards shit GR claims it can.
>you are just throwing False equivalence out of your ass here. If it actually classifies as a false equivalency it's because a unicorn and gravity have as much proof of existing as the other in that they don't exist. You're somewhat right in this instance, I can't really equate two things that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST. That's why I also asked for proof first and not your re-descriptions.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 20:36:23 No. 12525810 Report >>12525793 >balls attract balls If they touch does it make them gay? What causes them to attract?
>gravity yes, the mass does indeed accelerate to another mass. Now instead of restating the premise of my question over and over, please tell me what is the cause of the acceleration?
>I dunno but we can describe the change mathematically using a constant Cool story bro, but that's not what I'm asking.
Anonymous
>>12525797 >I am asking for empirical evidence of your claims. You are not providing it, so fuck off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity There you go
>Oh well I'm talking about science here. I have never heard of a scientist or a serious one that denies the existence of gravity, thus you are not talking about science.
>AND WHERE IS THE EXPERIMENT FOR "GRAVITY" YOU STUPID FUCK? You're deriding because you're bereft of an answer, just as space and time are bereft of properties that allow it to do the ass backwards shit GR claims it can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Here, read it.
>If it actually classifies as a false equivalency it's because a unicorn and gravity have as much proof of existing as the other in that they don't exist. There's experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicorns, next.
Anonymous
>>12525797 Not original anon, but I'll bite.
>hurr durr image is blurry so you don't know We can tell it's got a massive gravitational field, that it's got things orbiting it, and it shows all the properties of a black hole. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Screeching you don't believe it doesn't make it not so. Your own incredulity isn't science.
>empirical evidence Cavendish experiment, gravitational lensing, orbital dynamics, and the fact that things all go down at a constant rate that is proportional to mass - not density. See the feather and hammer drop on the moon.
>where is the gravity experiment Cavendish experiment. Also going outside and dropping objects and observing they all accelerate at the same rate - again, not at a constant speed proportionate to density.
>gravity and unicorns have the same proof Once again, gravity is a daily observation. If you want to see unicornsn head to mlp, but they might even be too smart for you.
Anonymous
>>12525810 >what causes it? Yes, gravity.
>lol that's not gravity - the mass attracts other mass, now what's the cause? As far as I know, there is no "cause" - gravity is a property of matter. Matter "bends" spacetime, causing objects with mass to attract. We can describe this phenomenon, and we call it gravity.
>you're only describing the property mot explaining it Exactly. Why is the sky blue? I can talk about light scattering and the properties that cause the sky to be blue, but I can't tell you why the universe chose to make those circumstances make something an ephemeral property we call "blue." At some point, everything boils down to "that's they way it is." There may actually be deeper reasons, but we haven't found them yet. However, that doesn't invalidate everything we do know.
But so far you'ce admitted that yes, gravity exists, but you don't like the term and can't accept that gravity is a phenomenon and not a physical, tangible thing. You're playing stupid word games, not doing science.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 21:18:50 No. 12525931 Report >>12525820 >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Is not proof! It describes how it functions, but never shows what "it" actually is.
>I have never heard of a scientist or a serious one that denies the existence of gravity I don't deny the DESCRIPTION that we refer to as "gravity". Yes mass attracts mass, it's observed to do this! Now WHAT IS THE CAUSE of why it does that? Why does it attract itself? "Gravity" is simply a name for the phenomena of mass accelerating to another mass.
>There's experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicorns "GR" is not an object or force to be negated you fucking retard. It's a description.
>>12525824 >We can tell it's got a massive gravitational field, that it's got things orbiting it, and it shows all the properties of a black hole. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Screeching you don't believe it doesn't make it not so. >>12525661 >Another meme we made up by looking at *everything that a blackhole isn't* in order to define what it is >and the fact that things all go down at a constant rate that is proportional to mass - not density Because it's described that way. Now tell me why it falls. "Hurr cause gravity" restates the premise and leaves me no choice but to keep asking why because it's not an answer.
>Cavendish experiment, Cavindish experiment! Which never explained why the fucking lead balls attract, merely documented and described the difference in a quantitative manner. Get it though the thick lead ball in your head.
>Once again, gravity is a daily observation So is the blue sky. Why don't I ever hear of the "blue sky" force?
bjects with mass to attract.
How is space bent? What prope
Anonymous
>>12525931 >"Gravity" is simply a name for the phenomena of mass accelerating to another mass. No shit retard, water is that transparent thing that is wet, wow bro I didn't know.
>WHAT IS THE CAUSE of why it does that? Why does it attract itself? Science is about how, not why, why is about philosophy.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 21:32:34 No. 12525964 Report >>12525878 >gravity is gravity And circular reasoning is circular
>As far as I know, there is no "cause" - gravity is a property of matter. Then why do both accelerating masses accelerate towards a null point not located nor a part of either of said masses?
>Matter "bends" spacetime, causing objects with mass to attract. What properties does "space" have that allows it to bend? Time is a measure, not something. Describing both as one, doesn't make it exist as something that does something.
>We can describe this phenomenon, and we call it gravity. "Yes". Which is why gravity is a description, just like I've said for the past 6 or so posts.
>I can talk about light scattering and the properties that cause the sky to be blue, but I can't tell you why the universe chose to make those circumstances make something an ephemeral property we call "blue." I'm not asking you to answer "why did the universe make mass exhibit gravity?". That would be admitting it exists and causes something. I'm asking for the proof of gravity as a force/cause in the first place. I keep getting the answer "well it is" but no proof. Just a described measure of acceleration. It's like calling an "inch" something. An inch "of what"?
>everything boils down to "that's they way it is." Not science
>There may actually be deeper reasons, but we haven't found them yet. However, that doesn't invalidate everything we do know. That being Gravity is a description, not a force.
>But so far you've admitted that yes, gravity exists, as a description
>gravity is a phenomenon and not a physical, tangible thing. Just like a shadow.
>You're playing stupid word games, not doing science. If I wanted to do that, I would equate a descriptive word to something that exists and argue semantics over it rather then explain the cause.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 21:39:21 No. 12525987 Report >>12525937 >No shit retard, water is that transparent thing that is wet, wow bro I didn't know. And gravity is the...shadow...of..See unlike water, gravity has no substance to even discuss. You can talk about the mass, but mass attracting other mass...well? What is in the null point where they accelerate to? Tell me what's there worth discussing over.
>Science is about how, "How" does a mass attract another mass? Is that better?
>Well, uh it does so by this completely independent modality we refer to as "gravity". No, you're fucking dumb. Gravity is a description of the change, not an account nor "the actual thing" that causes the fucking change in the first place.
Anonymous
gravity is what causes more dense objects to sink
Anonymous
>>12525745 >If I drop two balls, both with different diameters but equal densities, they fall at an equal rate. >Why is this if it's based on density? Sir...
Anonymous
>people are actually debating this guy
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 22:11:06 No. 12526093 Report >>12525990 >gravity is what causes more dense objects to sink Or is in the density of particular objects that put it in its proper place among equilibrium with other objects of various densities? Does oil float on water because of gravity?
>>12526022 >my, how far we've fallen You mean, "my, how much we've succumbed to gravity"?
Anonymous
>>12525964 >>12525964 >thing a is thing a Yes, that is a tautology, because that's how definitions work. Gravity is defined as the attraction between masses, so attraction between masses is gravity.
>not actually to each other but to a center And now you've discovered what a barycenter is. Do some reading.
>what properties does space have allowing it to bend That's for the physicists to talk about, but I'm sorry, your own incredulity does not invalidate them, retard.
>"hurr durr gravity is just a description" ALL language is a description. Mass is the amount of matter in an object. Matter is non-energy "stuff" with mass. An a-flat is a spexific frequency. A cat is a mammal with cat-like qualities. Again, you're not doing science - just playing word games and pretending your own incredulity means anything.
>I'm asking for proof And you reject all proof because you think gravity is a physical thing you can hold in your hands. Is inertia not real because we only measure and observe it? Velocity? Speed? No. These "exist" as properties of objects, and they are defined by measurements. Sorry you don't understand that, but ignorance isn't an argument.
>hurr durr "shadow" Dumb example, idiot.
>semantics That's exactly what you're doing. Gravity, like mass, inertia, and potential energy, is a property of matter. It is not something you can hold in your hands or put your dick into. Stop treating it like it is.
Anonymous
>>12526008 Sorry meant different diameters but equal masses, not densities.
These will fall at an equal rate despite having different densities. They should fall at a rate proportional to their densities and have no acceleration.
Anonymous
>>12525562 >Gravity assumes that matter magically attracts other matter. It's directly observed, not assumed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment >Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air. Why would that make it fall without gravity?
>A hot air balloon has a natural upward moving force So "magic?"
>because hot air is less dense. Not true. Away from Earth's gravity abs other large gravitational forces there is no force that separates densities.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Wed 30 Dec 2020 23:18:31 No. 12526372 Report >>12526118 >Yes, that is a tautology So "gravity" is as much of a "thing" as a unicorn.
>Gravity is defined as the attraction between masses, so attraction between masses is gravity. "Yes". Now how do masses attract? Is it because they love each other? Is gravity love?
>And now you've discovered what a barycenter is. A measurement. Does a measurement cause something?
>That's for the physicists to talk about, but I'm sorry, your own incredulity does not invalidate them, retard. You're the one who mentioned the notion that a vacuum/measurement somehow performs feng shui and produces the phenomena known as "gravity" which is absurd. If space is not a vacuum and time is not a measure, then what are they and what properties do they have that allow them to do this? If you don't know then don't mention it as if it were an answer.
>ALL language is a description. And I am asking for "the thing" that isn't purely a description causing the phenomena you call "gravity". Yes I understand that the answer is going to come in the form of you describing (cause), but things that exist do so independently of monkeys observing them on a mobile rock. So do it. Don't just sit here and explain to me semantics. I'm not here to argue semantics, I want "the thing" you're attempting to argue semantics over.
>Is inertia not real because we only measure and observe it? Velocity? Speed? All of those are effects caused by what mass does. Oh, and so is gravity. Now explain why mass does what it does to cause all those phenomena/measurements to exist in the first place.
>because other measurement said so (spacetime) isn't even applicable. Measuring a measure isn't what I want, I want "the thing" that you're saying was measured.
>Dumb example, idiot. It's a phenomena, it's observable, it's measurable. And yet, it is not actually a cause nor something of substance. It is caused, specifically by light. Gravity is CAUSED my mass attracting to mass. Now why the fuck does mass do that?
Anonymous
>>12526127 So two balls of different diameters, equal masses but different density? The denser one will reach the ground earlier. Child's play. You can test it for yourself at any time.
Anonymous
>>12526372 Not him but.
>A measurement. Does a measurement cause something? Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem >So "gravity" is as much of a "thing" as a unicorn. Show me a experiment about unicorns, otherwise your comparison is worthless.
>I want "the thing" you're attempting to argue semantics over. Gravity is not a thing, is merely the name we give to phenomena experimented.
>Now explain why mass >why the fuck does mass Not science, science is about how, not why.
Anonymous
>>12526118 >Yes, that is a tautology, because that's how definitions work. Oh boy, don't you know that a tautology is inherently meaningless? You aren't actually saying anything because you're literally repeating yourself.
Anonymous
>>12525987 >"How" does a mass attract another mass? Is that better? >What is in the null point where they accelerate to? Sure. Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity > that causes the fucking change in the first place. What causes it then bro? Your god? xD
Anonymous
>>12526462 All logical statements are tautologies. Tautology doesn't mean meaningless.
Anonymous
>>12526182 So as I understand it, the superstition surrounding gravity rests on a single dubious experiment that has never been *accurately replicated and is also dubbed as
>"the least precisely known among all fundamental physical" Good going for ya, gravity nut.
Anonymous
>>12526590 *the least precisely known among all fundamental physical constants
>>12526503 >A is A, B is B, red is red, birds are birds and gravity is gravity Oh yeah, very enlightening.
Anonymous
>>12526590 >So as I understand it, the superstition surrounding gravity Meaning what?
>rests on a single dubious experiment that has never been *accurately replicated It has been accurately replicated thousands of times.
>"the least precisely known among all fundamental physical" So what?
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 00:36:48 No. 12526688 Report >>12526447 >Show me a experiment about unicorns, otherwise your comparison is worthless >>12525797 >You're somewhat right in this instance, I can't really equate two things that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.>Gravity is not a thing, is merely the name we give to phenomena experimented. Which is exactly the same thing I've been saying
>Now explain why mass >why the fuck does mass >Not science, science is about how, not why. There you go with the semantics again. "How does mass" since you're such a fucking sperg.
>>12526489 >Sure. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity You're linking the theory that provides yet another redescription of gravity again and thinking it explains the cause. Also this doesn't explain or prove how "space" and "time" has properties to be bent, or act on anything for that matter. As an anon in this thread poitined out earlier, "that's a matter better suited to be talked about by physicists" which is an accurate statement because a physicist studies a host of batshit insane ideologies about things that have never been empirically shown to exist.
If they're accelerating towards a "null" point then what's there is "null". It's "null" causing you're stupid gay ball touching matter phenomena. At least that's where the matter is accelerating towards. Wonder why? Or rather "how" for semantics sensitive anon?
>What causes it then bro? Your god? xD YEAH THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING. Then when I correct people when saying gravity is just another description for the phenomena I'm inquiring about you pretend that's an answer to the question. Maybe it's "your god"? Maybe it's jello pudding, or the flying spaghetti monster. Even if it did have to do with density, it still doesn't answer where or how different densities end up in different areas/places. Much like how asking "How much levity/gravit" does x have" doesn't tell me why "matter" attracts/is repelled by other matter.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12526602 >Oh yeah, very enlightening. That's nice, now show all logical statements are meaningless.
Anonymous
>>12526688 >You're linking the theory that provides yet another redescription of gravity again and thinking it explains the cause. It explains that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime.
>Also this doesn't explain or prove how "space" and "time" has properties to be bent, or act on anything for that matter. It observably has those properties. You're assuming that they don't have these properties by default and that having them therefore needs to be "explained."
>a physicist studies a host of batshit insane ideologies about things that have never been empirically shown to exist. What exactly in this thread hasn't been empirically shown to exist? General relativity is a completely empirical theory.
>It's "null" causing Being the point which the objects accelerate toward does not indicate it is the cause of acceleration. You are a simpleton.
Anonymous
>>12525318 Relativity is just a model. A successful model. The equation doesn't have to have anything else to do with reality other than predictions made by the equation tend to be successful. The moment it starts to fail in prediction or some observations are made that the equation can't predict is just the moment the equation is modified and replaced. Meanwhile people will continue to use Einstein-Hilbert equations for the things it works for while showing it's a special case of whatever the new equation would be, then the new equation would be used for predictions that do not come from Einstein-Hilbert.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 01:16:53 No. 12526855 Report >>12526773 >It describes gravity being caused by the model of the curvature of spacetime. "Space" has no properties and acts upon nothing. Time is a measure. How you can bend either has yet to be shown.
>It observably has those properties. No it doesn't! Neither space nor time has been put into an experiment to show so. "Time" is a tool used to record in most experiments, a measurement. It records change. There's no proof of it being a cause or a flow or something that acts upon something else.
>You're assuming that they don't have these properties by default and that having them therefore needs to be "explained." >you want proof of the claim "yes" you moron.
What exactly in this thread hasn't been empirically shown to exist?
Space and time
>General relativity is a completely empirical theory. It's a description, a model. It describes a lot of things that have never been shown to empirically be something.
>Being the point which the objects accelerate toward does not indicate it is the cause of acceleration. SO
WHAT
IS
IT
THEN?
Is all I'm asking brah.
>You are a simpleton. Well shit, you obviously don't know either.
>>12526788 >this poster most likely believes that GPS actually works using Einsteins velocity composition laws >this poster also most likely believes that anything other than a refrigerator improvement patent has come out of the "big brain" of Einstein Well at least he had accurate descriptions. I can do that too. "The sky is blue", gibe Nobel plz.
Anonymous
>>12526662 https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurement >Despite the latest improvement in precision, the reason (or reasons) for the discrepancies between G measurements remains a mystery lmao
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12526093 >You mean, "my, how much we've succumbed to gravity"? fuggin kek
Anonymous
>>12526855 >"Space" has no properties Empirically wrong. Try again.
>Time is a measure. No, time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie.
>How you can bend either has yet to be shown. It's been shown over and over again that mass and energy bend it. If you have an argument against the mountains of empirical evidence for GR, then give it. Otherwise, stop talking out of your ass.
>No it doesn't! Neither space nor time has been put into an experiment to show so. Every experiment related to GR has done so. Try again.
>"Time" is a tool used to record in most experiments, a measurement. A measurement of time is a measurement, time is not a measurement, it's what you measure. Dumb schizo.
>There's no proof of it being a cause GR is an empirically proven scientific fact, get over it.
>"yes" you moron. Good, so you recognize the incorrect assumption making you ask stupid questions.
>Space and time They have been empirically shown to exist for thousands of years.
>It's a description, a model. Yes, and a completely empirical theory.
>It describes a lot of things that have never been shown to empirically be something. Like what?
>SO >WHAT >IS >IT >THEN? Curved spacetime.
>>this poster most likely believes that GPS actually works using Einsteins velocity composition laws Not him, but GPS definitely uses relativistic corrections. The satellite clocks get slowed down to account for time dilation caused by speed and gravitational effects, and they receive updates from a base station to account for the relativistic effects unique to each satellite.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>12526976 My man, either you're some freemasonic shill with government ties or you're not very bright. There is nothing that density levels leave unexplained when it comes to observing naturally falling and rising objects on earth.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12527164 You're not answering the question, so I'll just assume you have no answer and you're just posting non sequiturs. The gravitational constant is hard to measure because it's weak compared to other fundamental forces and there are more sources of error. But it's still known to a very high degree of accuracy.
>There is nothing that density levels leave unexplained when it comes to observing naturally falling and rising objects on earth. And gravity completely explains that and much much more, so your claim is irrelevant. Masses are attracted to each other independently of falling/rising on Earth.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525346 Density only explain effects of gravity. Why something sink and something floats specifically. But not why there is up and down at all
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 03:34:30 No. 12527397 Report >>12526973 >Empirically wrong Not Empirical, hence correct. There is nothing empirical that proves the existence of space, as something that has properties. As a model, sure.
>No, time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie. According to a theory/model. Not in reality.
>mass and energy bend it And that's "space"? "Time"? What is "energy"?
>If you have an argument against the mountains of empirical evidence for GR, then give it. I'm not arguing over the non existent proof that space has properties. GR describes it as so, but has never shown so. It's "accurate" according to its own axiom, that being the assumption that space does something.
>Every experiment related to GR has done so Nope. Try again.
>A measurement of time is a measurement >time is not a measurement, it's what you measure. Dumb schizo. Lol. So show me "what it is" that you're measuring. You can show me an inch of wood, a square meter of grass, but can you show me a second of time? It is not "of something". It's "of a measure". In the case of seconds it's "intervals of what cesium atom does".
>GR is an empirically proven scientific fact >confusing a theory for a fact Not science
>Good, so you recognize the incorrect assumption making you ask stupid questions I'm not assuming shit doesn't exist with no proof. Is it a stupid question because you don't understand it?
>They have been empirically shown to exist for thousands of years. So has a shadow
>empirical theory. How many contradictions are you up to now? I've lost count.
>Like what? space, a photon particle, gravity as an independent force. A host of things.
>Curved spacetime. Well according to the belief system of GR, "yeah okay whatever". I guess I'm going to have to ask someone who doesn't belong to that religion for a real answer.
>Not him, but GPS definitely uses relativistic corrections I bet you believe that. It's one of the main coping mechanisms that fails at being a cope because it's not how it actually works.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12527397 I admire your patience. These people deny without actually trying to contradict what you say. Blinded by arrogance they prefer lies over the possibility of being wrong.
Anonymous
>>12527397 >Not Empirical Wrong.
>There is nothing empirical that proves the existence of space, as something that has properties. You're retarded. Space is empirically studied every day.
>According to a theory/model. Not in reality. Doesn't follow. Every description of reality is a model. The only difference is that some models are supported by evidence while others are not. GR is supported by a massive amount of evidence. Your schizo babble is supported by 0 evidence.
>And that's "space"? "Time"? What is "that" referring to? Your question makes no sense.
>What is "energy"? The capacity to do work.
>I'm not arguing over the non existent proof that space has properties. Right, you're arguing over the massive amounts of existent evidence that space has properties.
>GR describes it as so, but has never shown so. Empirically proving GR is the same as showing that spacetime curves, since that is what every prediction of GR is based on. Again, if you have some alternate theory that makes the same predictions based on something else, do it already. Until then, fuck off schizo.
>It's "accurate" according to its own axiom No, it's accurate according to massive amounts of empirical evidence, which you have no argument against. Sad!
>Nope. Wrong.
>So show me "what it is" that you're measuring. You can show me an inch of wood You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time. An inch is a unit of space. If you don't think space exists then an inch is already meaningless. Dumb schizo.
>In the case of seconds it's "intervals of what cesium atom does". You're so fucking stupid. An interval is by definition an amount of time or space. It's like you're trying to navigate on an x-y graph while denying that the axes exist.
>confusing a theory for a fact GR is a theory and a fact.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12526602 >gravity, or gravitation, is the observed attraction between two objects with mass, as observed in everyday occurrence by objects falling at the rate of 9.8m/s^2 and in more precise experiments such as the Cavendish experiment or through phenomena such as orbital mechanics or gravitational lensing >therefore, attraction between two masses is gravity Your argument then either becomes "WAAAH TAUTOLOGY" or "but that's not gravity" because you have some absurd definition of it that no one anywhere outside of your Dunning-Kruger addled psyche uses.
Anonymous
>>12527397 >I'm not assuming shit doesn't exist with no proof. That's exactly what you're doing. You're assuming space has no properties with no proof, and in denial of the evidence to the contrary. One of those would make you stupid, both at the same time makes you retarded.
>So has a shadow Yes, and?
>How many contradictions are you up to now? I've lost count. 0, you can't count.
>space >a photon particle Both empirically proven.
>gravity as an independent force Independent from what?
>Well according to the belief system of GR Not a belief system.
>I bet you believe that. It's not what I believe, it's proven:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2.pdf Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 04:58:10 No. 12527715 Report >>12527530 >You're retarded. Space is empirically studied every day. Just study a shadow, it's much closer and easier to see.
>Doesn't follow. Every description of reality is a model. I suppose. "A unicorn has a horn" is as true a statement as "spacetime is warped". Now actually show me the horn.
>GR is supported by a massive amount of evidence. yeah well saying "Spacetime is warped", and "light speed is constant" doesn't magically make it so. Prove it for once.
>Your schizo babble is supported by 0 evidence. I asked for evidence of claims. Mostly anyway.
>The capacity to do work. Yeah well "the capacity to do work" can bend a lot of things. All of them have to exist first. I can bend an iron rod. Now what is "space" made of that allows it to bend? What properties does it have? Plasticity? Tell me, don't just keep repeating yourself.
>you're arguing over the massive amounts of existent evidence that space has properties. I am asking for the evidence, and arguing over your non evidence that you keep posting. All you do is post descriptions after descriptions. It's not evidence. Just pull out some fairy tales and start listing off the characters while you're at it, it's as useful as repeating "spacetime is warped" over and over like a drunken bum.
>No, it's accurate according to massive amounts of empirical evidence, which you have no argument against. "Show it"
>You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time. >units Yeah. A fucking measurement, stupid.
>An interval is by definition an amount of time or space. So it's a measurement, you fucking retard,
>It's like you're trying to navigate on an x-y graph while denying that the axes exist. LOL. Okay, IRL is CAD now. I can lock my couch to the x coordinate in my house and move it around and program my acorns to extrude in the z coordinate as oak trees. You're so detached from reality, it's astonishing.
>theory and a fact. "theory" means "guess" moron.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 05:11:12 No. 12527751 Report >>12527605 >You're assuming space has no properties with no proof, Correct. I have no proof of space having properties so I am assuming it has no properties. How do I prove that something exists and does something when it has no properties? I can't. That's why I leave it as an assumption and ask for proof of the contrary.
>denial of the evidence to the contrary You saying "Spacetime is warped" is not proof of anything other than the existence of the fucking model itself, let alone "Space" or "time". It's completely arbitrary to balance the math.
>Yes, and? Exactly. A shadow isn't a cause, or it's not the cause of what you're seeing. A shadow does not cause a shadow, just like how "mass attracting" may not necessarily be because of the mass itself. The null point where the mass accelerates towards, perhaps. That isn't "the mass" now is it?
>0, you can't count. And you can't count "space". Quantify it as something without just saying it is or that "hurr it's warped". What's warped? The absence of properties? What the fuck is space?
>uh warped "vacuum geomancy" is about as close as you've gotten so far and it's fucking absurd. Oh with the "addition of a time dimension" whatever the fuck that means. How time is "Dimensional" is beyond me. What are the coordinates of time if it's dimensional?
>Both empirically proven. You keep saying that...but never showing it.
>Not a belief system. The foundation of the belief system actually assumes that light travels in the first place, and has a constant speed.
Anonymous
>>12525324 You know something strange. There is a behavior all astronauts have. As I’ve been told. Especially if they been in space for far too long. We think of gravity as a pull to the ground but never as a specific coordination. If you’re lying in bed for example on earth you know your back meets the bed meets the floor that meets the ground. In space it is different your mind looses balance. You don’t know where up down left and right. There is no guiding force. You will definitely feel it because blood will flow differently. Inertiatic instinct. Sometimes I have nightmares of being in space in my little capsule. Away from the workstation. And I look through a window. And I get crazy because I don’t know where up down left and right. All I know is learned approximation. But it’s hard to balance that information when your mind can’t keep what’s in front of you steady. How ever it does a good job doing because of learned behavior but not before you panic because it’s Temporary. Because your body feels the difference.
Anonymous
>>12527397 Using your logic, I could literally disprove that cats exist because, even though someone could observe and measure a cat in front of them, it's not actually a cat - just a mass of atoms and electrical interactions that we label as a "cat" because we're deluded into believing cats exist.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12527781 Even if it’s a dream it makes you think about life on Earth. You begin telling inanimate objects to stay because you think they are going to move. But in reality it’s just your mind.
Anonymous
>>12527715 >Just study a shadow Not an argument. Try again.
>"A unicorn has a horn" is as true a statement as "spacetime is warped" What empirical studies have shown unicorns with horns?
>Now actually show me the horn. You've already been shown. You're in denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity >yeah well saying "Spacetime is warped", and "light speed is constant" doesn't magically make it so. Right, the mountains of evidence for GR make it so.
>Prove it for once. It already has been proven. Pick up a textbook.
>I asked for evidence of claims. No, you spouted a bunch of schizo nonsense and claimed empirical science isn't empirical.
>All of them have to exist first. First? You mean they have to exist at a TIME before they are bent? Wow it's almost like you're incapable of saying anything about physics without admitting spacetime exists. Dumb schizo.
>Now what is "space" made of that allows it to bend? It's not "made of" in the first place, since it's not matter. It's simply a categorical error to assume that space is like other things that you bend. Dumb schizo.
>What properties does it have? Curvature, 3-dimensionality, local density, etc.
>Tell me, don't just keep repeating yourself. I have to keep repeating myself because you're in denial and keep repeating the same lies over and over.
>I am asking for the evidence, and arguing over your non evidence that you keep posting. No, you're denying the evidence exists. You've already been given the evidence.
>All you do is post descriptions after descriptions. That's called communication.
>Yeah. A fucking measurement, stupid. Units aren't a measurement. They are used to express a measurement. Go back to elementary school.
>So it's a measurement, you fucking retard A measurement of an internal would be a measurement, you fucking retard. Intervals exist regardless of whether you measure them.
>Okay, IRL is CAD now. So schizos can't understand analogies.
Anonymous
>>12527751 >I have no proof of space having properties It's already been given to you.
>How do I prove that something exists and does something when it has no properties? You don't. Fortunately, that doesn't describe spacetime.
>That's why I leave it as an assumption and ask for proof of the contrary. You falsely assume it and ignore proof of the contrary. Why assume it if you don't know? Because you're a schizo.
>You saying "Spacetime is warped" is not proof of anything Right, GR being empirically proven over and over is. Dumb schizo.
>A shadow isn't a cause, or it's not the cause of what you're seeing. I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur. You're just making more idiotic assumptions without reference to any scientific model. Do you think it's because anything caused by a shadow is really caused by light? OK, so what is the equivalent of light with respect to gravity? What is the duality of which gravity is the "nonexistent" part?
>A shadow does not cause a shadow Where did I say gravity causes gravity?
>just like how "mass attracting" may not necessarily be because of the mass itself. That's not analogous. Masses being attracted to other masses isn't "X causing X." Do you understand the difference between causation and attraction?
>The null point where the mass accelerates towards, perhaps No. I have no idea why you are obsessed with the null point.
>And you can't count "space". Right, you just measure it.
>Quantify it as something without just saying it is or that "hurr it's warped". What's warped? The absence of properties? >"vacuum geomancy" is about as close as you've gotten so far and it's fucking absurd. Having a mental breakdown? This is gibberish.
>How time is "Dimensional" is beyond me. You just described things happening "first" so I doubt it's beyond you.
>What are the coordinates of time if it's dimensional? It depends on what metric you use.
>You keep saying that...but never showing it. Lie.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12527751 >The foundation of the belief system actually assumes that light travels in the first place, and has a constant speed. Not assumed, empirically proven. Dumb schizo. You're projecting your pathetic style of dogmatically adhering to assumptions onto empirical scientists. It's never going to work since we have evidence and you don't. The fundamental difference between science and your schizo delusion is the former is constantly testing itself against reality while the latter must constantly avoid reality in order to survive.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12527715 >"theory" means "guess" moron. It's the opposite. A theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly validated through empirical testing. Why are you on the science board if you can't even get basic terminology correct? It's funny how you schizos all make the same mistake about a theory "being just a guess" no matter what you're denying. Are you a creationist flat earther as well?
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 07:08:21 No. 12528102 Report >>12527817 >I could literally disprove that cats exist because, even though someone could observe and measure a cat in front of them, it's not actually a cat - just a mass of atoms and electrical interactions that we label as a "cat" because we're deluded into believing cats exist. Now do the same for space. How many atoms and electrical interactions are in space causing us to label it as something specific? For if what you say is true, the cat is at least composed of something substantial to be discussed. It has a foundation, it isn't in privation.
>>12527905 >Not an argument No shit. Nothing of substance to argue over
>What empirical studies have shown unicorns with horns? and of "curved space"? Again, I understand it's DESCRIBED. Now show what you're describing.
>posts the article from the website that tells you they don't take an editorial role, yet again And again I tell you "I get it, it's described". Now what meaning does it have?
>Right, the mountains of evidence for GR make it so. No experiment on earth has ever been performed that proves light has a speed, or travels for that matter.
>First? You mean they have to exist at a TIME before they are bent? They have to "exist". Whenever, wherever. Show they exist
>It's not "made of" in the first place, Neither is a shadow and a fucking unicorn bro. Don't let me stop you from roleplaying in fantasy land though.
>It's simply a categorical error to assume that space is like other things that you bend. Just like it's a categorical error to assume that space has properties, amirite?
>Curvature, 3-dimensionality, local density, etc. In the model of "Spacetime" sure. But show it in real life please. What is "space". Density? How dense is space? I thought it wasn't "made of". How can it be dense?
>you're in denial and keep repeating the same lies over and over. Asking for proof when given simple descriptions is not a lie.
1/2
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 07:24:45 No. 12528148 Report >>12527905 >Units aren't a measurement. They are used to express a measurement >>12527530 "You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time"
>units of space and time Yeah. Units "of" a measurement. They're expressing the measurements "space and time".
>A measurement of an internal would be a measurement, you fucking retard. "Yes"
>Intervals exist regardless of whether you measure them. INTERVALS "OF WHAT", STUPID? OF SPACE? WHAT THE FUCK IS SPACE?
>So schizos can't understand analogies. So space is now an analogy?
>>12527995 >Fortunately, that doesn't describe spacetime. I'm talking of the real thing "Spacetime" is allegedly modeling. Such a wasted effort modeling that with no properties.
>Why assume it if you don't know? I do know. I know it has no properties to assume.
>Right, GR being empirically proven over and over is. >*light passes through glass >I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur. There would be no properties for occurrence.
>You're just making more idiotic assumptions without reference to any scientific model. "null" has no model. It is "null".
>OK, so what is the equivalent of light with respect to gravity? both are electromagnetic phenomena.
>What is the duality of which gravity is the "nonexistent" part? It's what something else does. Mass specifically...which is also an electromagnetic phenomena.
>Where did I say gravity causes gravity? We're on the same page about gravity being a description so I should just leave it at that.
>No. I have no idea why you are obsessed with the null point. Well it's where the fucking masses are going. Don't you think that would be the cause? The center of magnitude?
>Right, you just measure it. measure what? An inch of wood, a acre of grass...what is space?
>uh just measure it, it's curved doesn't satisfy it
>This is gibberish. it's not a vacuum? What is it then?
>You just described things happening "first" >order is time Anonymous
>>12527397 >this schizo is saying photons don't exist Anonymous
>>12528102 >Nothing of substance to argue over Great so you admit space is empirically studied every day.
>and of "curved space"? Every study related to GR.
>Again, I understand it's DESCRIBED. Now show what you're describing. You've already been shown the tests of GR. Nothing more is needed. Dumb schizo.
>No experiment on earth has ever been performed that proves light has a speed You truly are delusional. Take your meds.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html >Whenever, wherever. Thanks for again admitting time and space exist. Retard
>Neither is a shadow and a fucking unicorn bro. Shadows clearly exist and unicorns have no evidence of existing. What is your point you dumb fucking schizo?
>Just like it's a categorical error to assume that space has properties, amirite? I never assumed space has properties, it's empirically proven. Dumb schizo.
>In the model of "Spacetime" sure. Right, the model that's been empirically proven. The empirical evidence you competent fail to respond to every single post. Dumb schizo.
>But show it in real life please. It's shown to you every time you measure it.
>What is "space". 3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie.
>Density? How dense is space? The scale factor is currently 1 and growing larger.
>I thought it wasn't "made of". How can it be dense? It has a metric expansion, which means it is getting less "dense" over time. In other words, the distances between points of space are increasing.
>Asking for proof when given simple descriptions is not a lie. Claiming you never got proof is a lie.
Anonymous
>>12528102 >cats are composed of something substantial Look at this buffoon believing atoms are "substantial." 99% of a "cat" is actually empty space. Sure, you can tell me how long the "cat" is or how much the "cat" weighs, but can you really tell me what a cat is.
I doubt it. You could only describe the cat, which, as you've stated, isn't meaningful. Therefore the cat is not real and any attempt to prove it is shows you've just bought into the stupid delusions of normies and pet store owners who make billions off the lie that are cats.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525598 Jump from a high place an see what happens
Anonymous
>>12528148 >Units "of" a measurement. They're expressing the measurements "space and time". No, measurements of space and time.
>INTERVALS "OF WHAT" Of space and time. Dumb schizo.
>WHAT THE FUCK IS SPACE? Already told you.
>So space is now an analogy? No, where did you get that idea? Try to keep up, read my post again. The analogy was you trying to navigate an x-y graph while denying the axes exist.
>I'm talking of the real thing "Spacetime" is allegedly modeling. How do you know this real thing doesn't have properties?
>I know it has no properties to assume. How? You must have some logical or empirical argument.
>>*light passes through glass ???
>There would be no properties for occurrence. You're spouting gibberish again. Try responding to what I said:
I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.
>"null" has no model. It is "null". Why would the absence of light have no model?
>both are electromagnetic phenomena. Completely wrong. Gravity is much weaker than EM, is purely attractive, doesn't have charges, is quadrupolar rather than dipolar, is related to inertia, etc.
>Mass specifically...which is also an electromagnetic phenomena. Ah, so surely you have a model with more empirical support than GR. Please present it already. I've been asking you to do this throughout the thread.
>We're on the same page about gravity being a description So you were just babbling.
>Well it's where the fucking masses are going. Don't you think that would be the cause? No, unlike you I don't make baseless assumptions. When you see two cars moving towards each other do you think the point between them is pulling them? Dumb schizo. Look in the mirror next time you criticize someone for not proving something.
>measure what? An inch of wood What is an inch?
>doesn't satisfy it Doesn't satisfy the schizo.
>it's not a vacuum? What is? Use English, schizo.
>>order is time Ordering events by time means events lie in time.
Anonymous
Bumping because I want to see this retard continue to try and prove that gravity doesn't exist because he can't touch it.
Anonymous
>>12529732 It doesn't though. Set your arrogance aside for once and try to think of a situation that density levels can not explain when it comes to falling (or rising) objects. Be open minded, entertain the thought.
Anonymous
>>12529891 I can think of three ways to explain how density is not the factor.
1) When you shake up a water bottle and drop it, the bubbles rise far more slowly - nearly stopping. In 0G, they cease rising entirely. If this were due to density, the motion of the water bottle should have no effect on the bubbles, but it does, showing it's at the very least not just density doing the work.
Video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YDXQ-VBjW7Q 2) If you take two objects of different density, they fall at the same rate. This should be impossible if it was due to density.
Videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs Keep in mind these are both in vacuums to remove the variable that is , but you can do similar experiments with things like basketballs and bowling balls.
Also, by your logic, things should not fall at all in a vacuum, as they would have no medium through which to move according to their density.
3) Objects accelerate as they fall. This is a known fact. However, if it is due to density, why do they accelerate? They should simply begin falling at a speed proportional to their density.
Ta-da. Three big reasons as to how "density" is not the cause. That is not arrogance - that is observation.
Even if you do "entertain the thought," attempting to derive equations for the "density as a force" idea will require the introduction of a coefficient equal to gravitational acceleration.
Video:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeUFqVfb2A It is not "arrogance" to reject an idea that has no legs to stand on after it fails to hold up to observation. That is how science is done, in fact.
Anonymous
>>12529891 It doesn't explain any rising or falling object since the only reason objects of different densities rise and fall is because of gravity. Gravity can be observed universally, not just in the narrow context of rising and falling with respect to the Earth, which makes your explanation obsolete.
Anonymous
>>12529982 Tell me how helium balloons and hot air balloons rise because of gravity?
Anonymous
>>12530008 Because, due to gravitation, the denser cold air falls beneath the balloon, which is filled with less dense hot air. In the absence of gravitation, these densities would coexist as masses without moving in any direction.
Density is merely the result of having enough matter in a certain amount of space. It does not, by itself, cause motion, as demonstrated by
>>12529981 Anonymous
>>12530011 >In the absence of gravitation, these densities would coexist as masses without moving in any direction. Are you telling me that without "gravity" density does not seek its equilibrium? Are you telling me that in an environment of 0G you can mix oil and water?
Anonymous
>>12530008 >Tell me how helium balloons and hot air balloons rise because of gravity? The air below the balloon is pushing against the balloon to counter the force of gravity on the balloon and the air above it. This is called the buoyant force. The amount of bouyant force is equal to a mass of outside air of equal volume to the balloon. So if the balloon's air is less dense than the outside air, it will have less mass than that and the ubouyant force will be greater than the force of gravity on the balloon. So the net force on the balloon is upwards.
Anonymous
>>12530028 >Are you telling me that without "gravity" density does not seek its equilibrium? Your question doesn't make sense. Equilibrium is when the net forces on all particles are zero. Density does not imply anything about forces at all. Objects of different densities arranged in any manner are already in equilibrium if gravity and other external forces are negligible.
Without gravity, objects just float around in space, conserving whatever momentum they have. Why is this hard for you to understand?
>Are you telling me that in an environment of 0G you can mix oil and water? Correct:
http://www.our-space.org/materials/states-of-matter/liquids-in-space Anonymous
>>12530041 >So if the balloon's air is less dense than the outside air, it will have less mass than that and the ubouyant force will be greater than the force of gravity on the balloon Where does this upper thrust, "gravity" defying force that you call buoyancy come from? What causes it?
Anonymous
>>12530064 I don't see anyone mixing oil and water in those videos. Let's take it further, why do steel and air not mix in 0G?
Anonymous
>>12530079 It doesn't defy gravity at all. It exists solely because of gravity. Gravity is what makes the concept of density matter when it comes to this, as it is gravity pulling the more dense air beneath the balloon, forcing the warm, less dense air up and pulling the balloon with it.
Without gravity, density would not behave like this at all. The objects would shoot off in whatever direction they were propelled in, and density would only be meaningful as a measurement.
It is because of gravity that dense and less dense objects interact the way they do, not in defiance of it.
Remember that gravity is not an insurmountable, massive hand pushing everything down. It is a constant, stable acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 toward the Earth's center of mass. If anything accelerates upwards enough to cancel out or even counterract acceleration due to gravity, it rises. This is why birds, bees, and yes hot air balloons rise - they counteract the downward acceleration - they do not "defy gravity" - that is an expression, not a description of reality.
Anonymous
>>12530089 If I stand beneath an anvil and drop it, the anvil does not slip through me even though I am less dense than it. It will just crush me. Though if I and the anvil jump out of a plane, we will fall at the same rate despite being different densities. Weird.
Anonymous
>>12530109 >It doesn't defy gravity at all. It clearly does because we're dealing with an upper thrust force that makes the balloon lift off from the ground. Tell me where this rising force in opposition of a falling force, originates from.
>>12530117 Denser objects reach the ground faster on earth. This is basic physics, anon. You can test this.
Anonymous
>>12530079 >Where does this upper thrust, "gravity" defying force that you call buoyancy come from? It's from the electrons at the surfaces of the balloon and air resisting being pushed together.
Anonymous
>>12530146 Electrons, you say... How does heating up air make appear electrons on the surface of a balloon? How do those electrons pull the balloon up? Do electrons possess some sort of gravity opposing quality?
Anonymous
>>12530089 >I don't see anyone mixing oil and water in those videos. He is mixing immiscible liquids of different densities. Why does it need to be oil specifically?
>Let's take it further, why do steel and air not mix in 0G? They do. If you mix steel and oxygen in space they won't separate based on density.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525562 >Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air. then why does apple not fall to the ground in zero gravity?
Anonymous
>>12530142 >hurr durr it defies gravity No, it doesn't. Defying gravity would mean it works despute gravity, not because of it. Buoyancy only exists because of gravity. Without gravity, objects of different density would float around directionlessly. They would not separate, and they certainly wouldn't decide on a "down."
>"denser objects reach the ground faster" If this were true, your head should tunnel through your shoulders.
Your retardation aside, why do objects fall in vacuum chambers? Shouldn't they float? And an anvil and a bowling ball will hit the ground at the same time despite being different desnities. These examples alone are direct refutations of your claim and proof it is your stupidity and arrogance making you cling to this belief that only density matters. Again, try refuting anything in
>>12529981 It's telling that you can't.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12528856 i always love when the schizoids get BTFO’d by the autists
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530142 Specific gravity.
I heard you can die in space if you spend time there. You need adjustments. Blood don’t pump at the same level. Things need to sit. It’s amazing how gravity defines what’s up or down. Or how we are programmed to see things a certain way almost as if there is a computer correcting your balance of the universe. I guess being in space is like losing training wheels.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530064 wow that’s cool i never realized that man the universe is so cool i fucking LOVE SCIENCE
Anonymous
>>12530166 He's not mixing anything. If gravity is responsible for density equilibrium then I should see a perfectly homogeneous solution between oil and water, steel and air in 0G environment. Doesn't really happen.
Anonymous
>>12530161 >How does heating up air make appear electrons on the surface of a balloon? It doesn't. There are electrons at the surface of every atom already. Heating the air makes the balloon push on the outside air's electrons more, meaning the bouyant force increases. But since the mass of the balloon doesn't increase, the gravitational force remains the same. So Heating the air increases the net upward force.
>How do those electrons pull the balloon up? They don't pull, they push.
>Do electrons possess some sort of gravity opposing quality? Electrons repel each other when pushed together. They can't occupy the same space.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 22:08:45 No. 12530218 Report >>12528208 I never said they don't exist, I said there was no empirical evidence of them
>>12528806 >Great so you admit space is empirically studied every day. Studied, but not empirically. That's why the only "proof" of space you can show me is a model
>rate of induction is a speed You're a fucking moron, but because you believe in the descriptions given by GR you probably believe it.
>Every study related to GR. No shit, the same theory proposing that it's curved in the first place. It's bent under it's own axiom.
>Thanks for again admitting time and space exist. "Whenever, wherever refers to no specific place or time. It doesn't even tell you whether there's a beginning or end.
>Shadows clearly exist I bet you believe it too
>I never assumed space has properties, it's empirically proven >but only under GR >3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie >space is a measurement "yes"
>in which events lie So it's a fishbowl? A womb? What is space?
>The scale factor is currently 1 and growing larger. a medium?
>It has a metric expansion, which means it is getting less "dense" over time So space is the aether?
>In other words, the distances between points of space are increasing. How? What is causing that?
>Claiming you never got proof is a lie. All you've done is given descriptions from GR and analogously compared the spacetime model to..."space", yet you haven't shown proof only claimed that the model itself is proof.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530199 >He's not mixing anything. Oh, so those liquids are separated according to their density? You lose.
>If gravity is responsible for density equilibrium then I should see a perfectly homogeneous solution between oil and water, steel and air in 0G environment. Why?
Anonymous
>>12530218 Cats are studied but not empirically. The only proof of cats you can show me are models.
Every study that shows cats exist assumes cats exist. They assume cats exist before proving them. Therefore all studies showing cats are real are wrong.
Cats are only proven under biological models that assume cats exist.
All you've done is show studies that say cats exist, but you haven't shown proof of cats. You only have models of cats.
Definition games are fun for retards!
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 22:19:59 No. 12530245 Report >>12528830 >Look at this buffoon believing atoms are "substantial." 99% of a "cat" is actually empty space. ....What is "space"? What is actually there in that 99%? Do you even know?
>Sure, you can tell me how long the "cat" is or how much the "cat" weighs, but can you really tell me what a cat is. At the very least I can show you empirical evidence of it.
>You could only describe the cat, which, as you've stated, isn't meaningful. I COULD do that, but since I actually *have something to study, I can test it and compare it to other things. Can you do the same with "space"?
>Therefore the cat is not real and any attempt to prove it is shows you've just bought into the stupid delusions of normies and pet store owners who make billions off the lie that are cats. But you just said I can test it, measure it, and show you it. Just because I can't tell you what it is, I can prove *whatever it is* actually is there. That's the difference between "cat" and "Space".
One has substance to speak of, the other is pure privation
>>12528856 >measurements of space and time. What properties are you measuring?
>Of space and time intervals? What is space and time a music sheet now?
>Already told you. Using GR you describe "Spacetime" not space.
>How do you know this real thing doesn't have properties? That's what I'm asking, yeah. "Show me the properties". Until then I won't subscribe to it.
>How? You must have some logical or empirical argument. Burden of proof. I have no burden in proving that which has never been shown to exist, exists. That is the job of the claimer.
>??? And slows down..cause it's an electromagnetic phenomena being capacitized by the medium it passes through. Glass is a capacitor.
>I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur. >I don't see why the absence of what causes the properties in the first place wouldn't cause properties to arise Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Thu 31 Dec 2020 22:31:38 No. 12530272 Report >>12528856 >Why would the absence of light have no model? Go ahead. Model an absence. Waste of time.
>Completely wrong. Gravity is much weaker than EM, is purely attractive, doesn't have charges, is quadrupolar rather than dipolar, is related to inertia, etc. Which are all descriptions.
>baseless assumptions. They go towards a null point, it's observed to be the case.
>When you see two cars moving towards each other do you think the point between them is pulling them? Did you actually equate a car with a moving celestial body? I'm not entertaining this stupid analogy. Where's the gas pedal on a planet you stupid fuck? Is earth gonna do a wheelie on the moon next? Absurd.
>What is an inch? A standardized measurement
>Doesn't satisfy the schizo. It doesn't satisfy you does it? Having to come in here and hope I buy into you repeating your circular bullshit?
>What is? yeah. "What is space". Can you tell me finally?
>Ordering events by time By order. Not by time. A source is not time. A flowing river does not start at "time", you dumb shit. You great grandpappy is not father time. Just ordered.
>>12530235 >Cats are studied but not empirically. >Veterinarians have now ceased to exist >All you've done is show studies that say cats exist, but you haven't shown proof of cats I can show you a cat, and there are tests I can perform on one..
>Definition games are fun for retards! >He still believes I'm arguing over definitions Anonymous
>>12530245 All I heard is cock in a vagina logic. When you have no space at all it feels like a bag. So you need a bigger and bigger vagina to even get satisfaction because the true joy of sex is taking out the wrinkles. Otherwise it’s like what’s the point in this. Get what I’m saying. All science convos have come down to sex and space. It’s more like they’ve become closed door politicians. And physicist say no I don’t want that country or this country to participate because there is no wiggle room.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530278 There is not even 1 Maru when they were the first rocket scientists and engineers.
Anonymous
>>12530245 >what is space? Not a cat, that's for sure.
>I have empirical evidence of cats. No, you don't. There are pictures of things claimed to be cats, and people claim to measure and study cats, but those claims are only measuring particle interactions and claiming to prove cats. You can only do this if you axiomatically believe cats exist. If you see the world for what it really is, you'd know the truth.
>I actually have something to study No you don't. You may claim to study the cat's dimensions, but that's not studying the cat itself. Its behavior? Also not the cat itself. All observations of the cat are of interrelated phenomena you choose to call a cat because of your sick, retarded dogma, but you can't actually study cat itself.
>I can prove it's there! You can't. You point at a mess of particles interacting and claim you saw a cat, but you only do that because of the arrogant assumption that cats are real. You can't open your mind to new paradigms.
>>12530272 >veterinarians Exist solely to profit from the lie that cats exist. They claim to study cats, but their claims are just made on measurements they attribute to cats.
>I can show you a cat and perform tests on one No you can't. No one has ever actually seen a cat. They just claim to because they observe phenomena and then attribute them to cats.
>not arguing over definitions Lol, so far it's solely about definitions and your inability to comprehend space and gravity as concepts.
Anonymous
>>12530184 >Defying gravity would mean it works despute gravity, not because of it. Buoyancy only exists because of gravity. So objects like helium balloons rise **because** of a downward pulling force. That's a new one.
>Without gravity, objects of different density would float around directionlessly. They would not separate What keeps weightless objects together? Shouldn't they fall apart?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>12530218 >Studied, but not empirically. Wrong.
>That's why the only "proof" of space you can show me is a model Every empirical proof is a model. Get over it schizo.
>>rate of induction is a speed Who are you quoting? Dumb schizo.
>No shit, the same theory proposing that it's curved in the first place. Yes, the same theory that has been proven over and over again. Either provide a better theory or fuck off already and take your meds.
>"Whenever, wherever refers to no specific place or time. It doesn't even tell you whether there's a beginning or end. Where did I say either? Learn how to read, dumb schizo.
>I bet you believe it too So light is never absent?
>>but only under GR >"Only" under a theory supported by massive amounts of evidence You are incredibly retarded. It's not even only under GR.
>>space is a measurement Wrong again, schizo.
>So it's a fishbowl? A womb? You're literally schizophrenic.
>What is space? I already told you. Read my posts again, schizo.
>a medium? Use English.
>So space is the aether? You're literally schizophrenic.
>How? What is causing that? It's the effect of cosmic inflation, probably due to vacuum decay. When you take your meds you might have enough intelligence to learn about it.
>All you've done is given descriptions from GR Why are you lying? What I've done is give you empirical evidence for GR, which means all your bullshit is out-of-date babble.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>quoting tesla
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530351 All the scientific documentaries and debates seem as if they have turned into a war crime trial. I can understand. Rumor is the person who was going to be picked to run after Clinton started murdering people after they were disclosed an educational topic. So they started to purposely give themselves the quintessential characteristics of a disease to say “I got the disease but I really don’t. I’ve been to space and these are symptoms of hours on duty. It’s just a coverup to see if they would enlist them.” However it leaves modern stress open for debate as originating in untreated infections by the medical lobby. So they’ve been trying to play open secuestre in the north.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>12530350 >objects rise because of a downward pulling force Yes. Try reading the explanations that have been given to you. A helium balloon rises because denser air is pulled beneath it, and that denser air pushes on it. The balloon, assuming its materials are strong enough, will fall in a vacuum chamber, despite the fact it has no medium to rise into. Why does this happen? Can you explain why objects fall in vacuum chambers? So far you've refused to.
>what keeps weightless objects together Electrostatic forces.
If you're correct and density is the only operating factorn how do compounds exist? Shouldn't the entire universe differentiate based on density? Thus the human body could not exist as it is made up of numerous substances of different densities that hold together.
Can you answer either of my questions?
Anonymous
>>12530245 >What properties are you measuring? Distance.
>intervals? Yes, intervals of space and time.
>What is space and time a music sheet now? No one cares about your delusions, schizo.
>Using GR you describe "Spacetime" not space. Space is part of spacetime.
>That's what I'm asking, yeah. No, that's what you're claiming. I'm asking you why you are claiming that.
>"Show me the properties" I did already.
>Burden of proof. The burden of proof has been more than met by physicists. The burden of proof is now on you. You can't even refute the evidence I've given you let alone come up with evidence for your delusions.
>And slows down..cause it's an electromagnetic phenomena being capacitized by the medium it passes through. You realize that making up words that only your schizo brain understands is not an explanation right? "Capacitized" is not a thing. Dumb schizo.
Light slows down in any medium it travels through regardless of the medium being a capacitor because the light is being absorbed and re-emitted by the medium in order to pass through it. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion in the first place, but your delusions need to be corrected either way.
>>I don't see why the absence of what causes the properties in the first place wouldn't cause properties to arise Hint: Adding the word "properties" to every other word doesn't actually do anything. Explain why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.
Anonymous
>>12530201 >Heating the air makes the balloon push on the outside air's electrons more, meaning the bouyant force increases. Rephrase this. You are not making coherent, logical sense here.
Anonymous
>>12530272 >Go ahead. Model an absence. Waste of time. So you're not going to answer the question, got it. Another abandoned schizo argument.
>Which are all descriptions. Yes, correct descriptions. What is your point?
>They go towards a null point, it's observed to be the case. So are you actually going to respond to what I said or are you at the stage of your mania where you just shut down completely and spout random statements?
>Did you actually equate a car with a moving celestial body? No. Learn how to read.
>I'm not entertaining this stupid analogy. Your complete inability to argue against basic logic is very entertaining though.
>Where's the gas pedal on a planet you stupid fuck? It's spacetime. When mass presses on it, it accelerates.
>A standardized measurement Of what?
>circular bullshit? Empirical evidence is not circular, your refusal to face it is.
>"What is space". Can you tell me finally? I already did. Take your meds.
>By order. Order on what?
>A source is not time. A flowing river does not start at "time", you dumb shit. More gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said. What a surprise.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530455 What don't you understand? More volume = more electrons trying to displace other electrons = more buoyant force.
Anonymous
>>12530434 Perfect vacuums do not exist on earth. They are low pressure chambers. In a hypothetical perfect vacuum, an object will expand because of the negative pressure. It's why the boiling point decreases in relation to negative pressure. Density seeking its equilibrium perfectly applies here.
Also, you are being illogical to attribute the cause of an upward force to a downward force. As if pulling something causes something else to be pushed. Schizo-tier.
>Electrostatic forces. You made this up. This requires electric charges.
The human body is an organised, complex living structure that functions by chemical processes. We're not talking chemistry, we're talking physics. What concerns us is the inherent properties of physical objects.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530470 Take these Purple Pills
Anonymous
>>12525318 >It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. This goes against the scientific method. stopped reading
Newton deduced a law of gravity that would account for keplerian orbits, which were based on direct observation
kill yourself
Anonymous
>>12530528 So space is a void with no specific gravity or directional ground. Just give it a new ton.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530536 The idea is simple. We count from 1-9 and there are 9 planets. Plus the sun and a half planet close to pluto. 0 and 10. What are the coincidences that the names for those same numbers are based on benign and malignant gravitational pulls if you were were to go there? Tree is Earth. It means all works of literature and languages are fairly new.
Anonymous
>>12530519 >no perfect vacuum chambers haha I win You don't. If density is the sole operating factor, objects would fall in proportion tp their density and medium. In a near perfect vacuum, all objects fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, in line with the theory of gravitation, but not with this density hypothesis. If it was density, they should fall slowly as there is next to nothing to "equalize" with. Your point is false.
>it's illogical to attribute an upward force to a downward force If I push a wedge between two things and hammer it, it will split them apart. By your logic, this is impossible because a downward force is causing a split in a lateral direction.
I and others have explained multiple times how this works. The fact you can't understand is proof of your complete schizo retardation.
>indiscriminate whining I'll admit, I used the wrong term. It's "electromagnetic forces." But still, doesn't explain why the human body doesn't differentiate into its base components since density is what causes things to fall.
And again, why do objects accelerate when dropped? If it's density, they should have an absolute speed proportional to their medium and density. This is not the observed case, and you literally cannot create a mathematical model of this that reflects reality.
Admit itn you're just incapable of understanding basic physics so you cooked up your own version to feel smart and show up all those people who managed to get out of high school.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 00:13:29 No. 12530608 Report >>12530330 >Not a cat >not not not privation. Defined by everything that it is not. That is what you have proven "Space" is. That it is not...but not what it is.
>No, you don't. Personally, I have 2.
>but those claims are only measuring particle interactions and claiming to prove cats. Oh? You mean they measured properties the cat exhibits?
>No you don't. You may claim to study the cat's dimensions, but that's not studying the cat itself. Its behavior? Also not the cat itself. All observations of the cat are of interrelated phenomena you choose to call a cat because of your sick, retarded dogma, but you can't actually study cat itself. Now you're just being a sophist.
>Exist solely to profit from the lie that cats exist. They claim to study cats, but their claims are just made on measurements they attribute to cats. Except when they prove a cat exists by measuring what properties it has.
>They just claim to because they observe phenomena and then attribute them to cats. What phenomena was observed that can be attributed to "Space". Is the phenomena that causes cats measurable? Is the phenomena that causes space measurable?
>yes we measured the interactions causing cat >but we only measure the interactions causing everything else such as celestial bodies in space, but not space itself? >inability to comprehend space and gravity as concepts. If your gripe is that I won't recognize them as concepts then you're misinformed or ill-informed. That's all I recognize them as period, concepts. Now show me the real thing, stupid.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 00:27:10 No. 12530667 Report >>12530376 >Wrong. So what is space? Still a "concept" being hashed out?
>Every empirical proof is a model. LOL NO, IT'S "REAL". If I want to prove a cat exists I show you a fucking cat, not a pinata of a cat.
>Who are you quoting? Correcting all the retards that believe light has a speed when it's an electromagnetic phenomena induced to exist by means of the interaction of a medium.
>Yes, the same theory that has been proven over and over again. >We proved this shit with our own descriptions Now lets see some empirical evidence of "Space". Put it in a container or isolate it best you can and show it to me.
>Either provide a better theory or fuck off already It's already been done! Why you keep rolling back to archaic and long since disproved theories is beyond me.
>Where did I say either? You imply that I'm implying time is implicated.
>So light is never absent? Is it? Is that what "Space" was made of the whole time?
>You are incredibly retarded. It's not even only under GR. Because if there's anything better than making a flawed theory, it's basing another theory on the foundation of said flawed theory.
>Wrong again So what is it being measured?
>You're literally schizophrenic. Well what is it? You're still failing to tell me what it is. You're telling me that all of the events in humanity lie on an arbitrary model? It's absurd. What is space?
>Use English. "medium" is an English word
>You're literally schizophrenic >literally Why do you need to include that word? You've already called me that twice, I get that you mean it. So what is space?
>It's the effect of cosmic inflation What is it inflating into? A furfags commission?
>Why are you lying? What I've done is give you empirical evidence for GR >using spacetime:the model from GR So tell me what space is.
>which means all your bullshit is out-of-date babble. That's GR though.
Anonymous
>>12530608 >space space space Not what we're talking about.
>I have two You may have two entities that you have elected to call "cats," but you're just as deluded as people who thing the drop phenomenon is caused by gravity
>measured properties posessed by a cat No, people measure properties and then attribute them to what they call a cat. I don't recognize it as a cat, and people who do have simply bought into the delusion. Can you show me a picture of cat-ness? Can you define cat-ness? No. You can only show me images of matter and shout "this is a cat" and describe things you claim to belong to cats, but like you say, it's only description, not definition.
>now you're just being a sophist Now you're catching on. As they say, takes one to know one.
>proven cats Again, they just ascribe properties to a cat. I can ascribe pdoperties to a unicorn, and those properties can be measured, but that doesn't suddenly make unicorns exist because unicorns don't exist, and I'm merely claiming the measurements prove a unicorn. People who claim to study cats have bought into the lie, this invalidating them. Again, show me a measurement of cat-ness.
Like physicists, vets just came up with the delusional idea of "cats" to make money by baffling the population. Once you do your own research and learn the truth you realize how stupid these people are, spending money on things like toys and medicine and scratching posts.
>spaaaace Again, not what we're talking about.
>I only recognize these things as concepts. Yes, and then you ignore, define away, or straight up handwave any proof of those things because you're either ignorant or stupid. So I'm doing the same thing, but with cats.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530596 >density is the sole operating factor, objects would fall in proportion tp their density and medium They do. Denser objects fall quicker to the ground than less dense objects on earth, in any environment. Look it up or test it. This is a simple fact.
>If I push a wedge between two things and hammer it, it will split them apart. By your logic, this is impossible because a downward force is causing a split in a lateral direction. That's not a good analogy because we're talking about an absolutely constant force. Not about the effect of a singular action that results in a singular counter-reaction.
>I'll admit, I used the wrong term. It's "electromagnetic forces." I assume you're referring to the forces on a molecular or atomic level which means you're pretty much affirming what I say because the density of an object is determined by its elemental properties.
>Admit itn you're just incapable of understanding basic physics so you cooked up your own version to feel smart Am I reading this from the same guy who's telling me that gravity is responsible for the rising of hot air balloons and who doesn't that objects of greater comparative density hit the ground quicker from the same altitude.
You need introspection and self-reflection.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 00:45:40 No. 12530739 Report >>125304 >>12530442 >Distance. Is that not a measurement?
>intervals of space and time. Elaborate, it makes no sense
>No one cares about your delusions And yet you're more apt to reply than a damage control team. If no one cared, why even mention it?
>Space is part of spacetime. You just did it again! Using GR you describe spacetime, but not the actual "Space" in reality. I am not talking about how space is modeled. I want proof of "Space". Don't draw me a unicorn and call it a real unicorn.
>You can't even refute the evidence You give no evidence, only analogies and models based on everything space is not. A model is not evidence, nor does it necessarily explain how what's being modeled actually functions. Like a model airplane, all the parts may look the same as the real thing, but it still isn't going to operate or fly the same nor does it show me the real one in action.
So show me "Space" as it is without the model. Can you even?
>You realize that making up words that only your schizo brain understands is not an explanation right? "Capacitized" is not a thing Are you the "how" not "why" sperg? Well whatever, you "got" me. "Capacitated".
>Light slows down in any medium it travels through regardless of the medium being a capacitor because the light is being absorbed and re-emitted by the medium in order to pass through it. Exactly. It's "capacitated". It undergoes a change that makes it necessary to pass through , which results in it "speeding" up or "slowing" down depending on the medium.
>regardless of the medium being a capacitor All mediums are. All of them are insulators too. It's just to "what degree" and relative to what other medium type it's compared to.
>Explain why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur. It's what causes something to occur in the first place. No light, no anything. If the sun burned out today, produced no light whatsoever, what would it "be"? How would the solar system continue existing?
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 00:56:10 No. 12530773 Report >>12530470 >So you're not going to answer the question Because there is "not enough info"
>Another abandoned schizo argument. >arguing over nothing Don't do this
>Yes, correct descriptions "Unicorns have horns" is a correct description that doesn't allude to anything useful in reality.
>So are you actually going to respond to what I said I just did. Want to tell me why they go towards the null point?
>No You did. You compared a vehicle controlled by a monkey on a rock with a rock that monkeys can't control. You're ridiculous.
>Your complete inability to argue against basic logic is very entertaining though. You're dubious is what you are. You actually want an answer? "YES" they do accelerate towards each other. If you took both cars, left them there for billions of years until the earth was gone leaving nothing but these two fucking cars, then yes they would accelerate towards each other meeting at a null point in between. Care to explain why they do that? Oh wait let me guess "because Newtons description" right?
>It's spacetime. Well shit, what gas station sells that additive? Would it work on a 2 stoke?
>Of what? I dunno, measurements aren't actually something.
>Empirical evidence models aren't empirical. They model the empirical
>Order on what? depends where the source is
>More gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said. What a surprise. Because time doesn't control anything, nor is something.
Anonymous
Gravity is a mathematical formula. It is capable of predicting the motion of objects precisely and accurately enough for most purposes.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 01:03:55 No. 12530801 Report >>12530677 >Not what we're talking about. Not if you're OP I guess.
>You may have two entities that you have elected to call "cats," but you're just as deluded as people who thing the drop phenomenon is caused by gravity The phenomena is called "gravity". Not caused by "gravity". Stop with this psychosis.
>No, people measure properties Yes
and then attribute them to what they call a cat.
Yes
>I don't recognize it as a cat, and people who do have simply bought into the delusion. "Okay schizo", but there's still "properties to be measured" as you clarified.
>Can you show me a picture of cat-ness? Can you define cat-ness? No. You can only show me images of matter and shout "this is a cat" and describe things you claim to belong to cats, but like you say, it's only description, not definition. But you just said the properties were measured, so scientifically speaking it's real. Now just do the same with space!
>I can ascribe pdoperties to a unicorn, yes, as you can yo any imaginary thing
and those properties can be measured
No, because you don't have a unicorn to measure. Because it's imaginary. Your "properties" in this case are imaginary.
>but that doesn't suddenly make unicorns exist because unicorns don't exist, and I'm merely claiming the measurements prove a unicorn. Now replace the word "unicorn" with "Space".
Anonymous
>>12530801 >OP Not OP, so doean't apply.
>gravity I was just using an example. Stop getting hung up on that.
>there are still properties to be measured Yes, but just like how downward acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, gravitational lensing, orbital dynamics, etc, etc, are attributed to gravity, people attribute properties to cats when in reality it has nothing to do with cats.
>properties can be measured Yes, but again, they are falsely attributed to cats, because cats don't exist. If you hadn't bought into the delusion, you'd understand, but you're too arrogant to admit.
>do the same with space! When people do, you dismiss them. Besides, we're talking about the hilarious falsehood of cats.
>you don't have a unicorn to measure And you don't have a cat to measure. You have a collection of particles that you, deluded as you are, call a cat and then pretend you're measuring a cat. Just like those physicists. You're no different, just dumber because you literally bought two of these non-entities and still play pretend with them. How sad!
>spaaace And replace "space" with "cat."
Anonymous
>>12530801 tripcodes are dogshit. Prove you aren't fanboy right now. What is hertzian technology?
Anonymous
>>12530667 >So what is space? I already told you, schizo.
>LOL NO, IT'S "REAL". Everything you say about reality is a model, schizo.
>Correcting all the retards that believe light has a speed I already gave you a page about several different experiments showing it has a speed, schizo.
>induced to exist by means of the interaction of a medium. This is gibberish, schizo.
>Now lets see some empirical evidence of "Space". Already given, schizo.
>It's already been done! No it hasn't, schizo.
>You imply that I'm implying time is implicated. No I didn't, schizo.
>Is it? It is, schizo.
>Is that what "Space" was made of the whole time? No, schizo.
>Because if there's anything better than making a flawed theory What is the flaw, schizo?
>So what is it being measured? Space.
>Well what is it? I already told you, schizo.
>You're telling me that all of the events in humanity lie on an arbitrary model? No, they lie in spacetime, schizo.
>"medium" is an English word "A medium?" is not English.
>Why do you need to include that word? Because you're literally a schizo, schizo.
>What is it inflating into? It's not, schizo.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530793 Are there different kinds of gravity? Like love for example has 10 different words in Latin or Hebrew. In Spanish language there is no word for love the idea is that it is a duty.
You can’t predict that a zero gravity chamber on earth can even replicate space’s void. Do gasses exert a force? It’s a vacuum, it’s a void...There has to be something wrong if we keep seeing it having earths instead force to maintain biological function.
Anonymous
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 06:31:14 No. 12531509 Report >>12531066 >tripcodes are dogshit I'm not using a tripcode, newfag.
>What is hertzian technology? Hertzian waveform technology such as radio.
>>12530880 >And replace "space" with "cat." yeah but the cat has properties to measure, I can prove what I'm calling a "cat" is there. What properties does space exhibit to measure?
>model of spacetime is not a property.
>>12531111 >Everything you say about reality is a model But can it be tested is the question.
>This is gibberish, No medium, no waveform. Really simple to understand if you have a brain.
>No, they lie in spacetime That's the model I was referring to dipshit. Now where is "the thing" it's modeling? What is space? What properties did you measure? You will probably fall back to your "curved" cope so I ask you how it's curved?
All you can do is show me *the stuff that isn't space* that's being curved, and call time something other than a measure when it's not. Then fall back on the theory of GR and the "model of spacetime" as if that actually had anything to do with what I asked. It doesn't, but go ahead and repeat "schizo" over and over like a glow agent and pretend it does. It's like reading Alice in Wonder land and believing the Cheshire cat exists just because you can describe it accurately from the story and now you're trying to convince everyone it's real. I don't buy it, faggot.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525601 what is the Coriolis effect then? why does it exist?
Anonymous
>>12531509 is classical newtonian mechanics also nonsense?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 >>Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. >> -Nikola Tesla What are the errors?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530793 No, gravity is an attraction between masses. This is empirically observed. Its cause is curvature in spacetime, which is part of a theory which has been empirically validated many times over. The only way we know anything exists is by forming a model of reality and testing its predictions via observation. Some people believe that their intuition or dogmatic beliefs are more important than models which are validated by empirical testing, and form delusions in order to avoid the harsh reality that they're incorrect or not smart enough to understand.
Anonymous
>>12530739 >Is that not a measurement It can be. It's the amount of space between two things. It can measured or not measured.
>Elaborate, it makes no sense What about it makes no sense?
>If no one cared, why even mention it? Because no one cares.
>I am not talking about how space is modeled. Yes you are, since all descriptions of reality are a model. Your excuse for not accepting scientific facts is that they are in the form all facts are in. Dumb schizo.
>You give no evidence The evidence is in my posts. Lying about something anyone can immediately check is not smart, schizo.
>A model is not evidence Correct. The evidence supporting the model is evidence, and that's what I gave you.
>Like a model airplane, all the parts may look the same as the real thing, but it still isn't going to operate or fly the same nor does it show me the real one in action. If it doesn't operate or fly the same then it's empirically invalidated, schizo. This is not hard to understand. Little children understand this, yet you have a hard time with it.
>So show me "Space" as it is without the model. You're already looking at it, schizo. You're already measuring it, schizo.
>"Capacitated" Still gibberish. Use English.
>It undergoes a change that makes it necessary to pass through Which is no more informative than saying it slows down to pass through glass. It's absorbed and emitted by the medium. It has nothing to do with glass being a capacitor. Now what is the point of all this? Does a car not have speed because it parks occasionally?
>All mediums are. All of them are insulators too. No, they're not. Making up your own definitions for words is not actually helping you argue anything.
>It's what causes something to occur in the first place. This doesn't answer my question.
>How would the solar system continue existing? It would continue existing, but the absence of light would cause various changes.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12530773 >Because there is "not enough info" What info do you need to explain why an absence of light can't be a cause?
>"Unicorns have horns" is a correct description that doesn't allude to anything useful in reality. Every difference I pointed out is very useful in reality. Further, it is empirically validated, unlike unicorns having horns. It's not surprising that you failed to see this, since you are incapable of facing empirical data.
>I just did. No. I pointed out that your assumption the null point was the cause because they go towards it was baseless. You then said they go towards the null point. This completely fails to respond to what I said.
>Want to tell me why they go towards the null point? Because their geodesics converge there. Again, it's like saying two cars are propelled by a point in the road and not their engines, momentum, gravity, etc.
>You did. Incorrect.
>You compared Correct. Comparison is not equation.
>a vehicle controlled by a monkey on a rock with a rock that monkeys can't control. And what does control have to do with the analogy?
>Care to explain why they do that? Gravity causes by curved spacetime. You're avoiding the question again. Why do you think the null point is the cause? It's a very simple question.
>I dunno Yes, I know. You're just spouting inconsistent gibberish in the hopes it will congeal into a coherent argument.
>models aren't empirical. Models are empirically validated or not.
>depends where the source is Source of what? And what does it have to do with order?
>Because time doesn't control anything Gibberish.
>nor is something. Wrong.
Anonymous
>>12531509 >But can it be tested is the question. Yes, GR is heavily tested, schizo. You already know this, schizo.
>No medium, no waveform. Incorrect. That's true for a mechanical waveform, not EM waveforms, which travel fine through a vacuum.
>That's the model I was referring to dipshit. No, you said "arbitrary model," schizo. GR is not arbitrary, it's empirically validated.
>Now where is "the thing" it's modeling? Nonsense question. Events have locations in space, space doesn't have a location in space. But thanks for admitting space exists.
>You will probably fall back to your "curved" cope so I ask you how it's curved? Mass and energy curve it. If you want to know the equations for how exactly it curves, pick up a textbook.
>All you can do is show me *the stuff that isn't space* All I can do is show you the effects of curved space on objects in space, which is exactly what GR is about.
>call time something other than a measure when it's not. It's not, by definition. Dumb schizo.
>Then fall back on the theory of GR and the "model of spacetime" as if that actually had anything to do with what I asked. It has everything to do with what you asked. Apparently you want reality without models, which is like asking for meaning without language. Too bad schizo. You aren't going to get it. The only reason you're asking is so that you can set an impossible standard of proof in order to avoid reality. It's really quite pathetic.
Anonymous
this entire thread is pic related
Anonymous
>>12532603 He's not trolling, the schizo is actually this stupid.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>12532928 he's been making this same thread for months though. maybe years.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525605 >we >WE Nobody on /sci/ is even capable of measuring their own height. This board is /x2/
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 >hey tesla what's wrong with relativity? >its uh. Uhhhhhhhh *shits pants* its just wrong Tesla was an idiot in his later life who was only good as an engineer. His ego was so inflated he took all the praise of himself as a genius and decided he was an expert at scientific endeavors as well. Einstein made him feel threatened because there was finally someone praised as smarter than him by public opinion
Anonymous
>>12525661 >"mass attracts mass"-correct description And we call that attraction gravity. You believe in gravity yet call it fiction. You are either stupid or schizophrenic.
Anonymous
>>12531509 >I can prove what I'm calling a cat is there How? You can measure it, but you're not actually measuring a cat or cat-ness, just the physical phenomena you've attributed to a cat. You can "touch" it, but that's actually electromagnetic phenomena you then ascribe to the cat. If you opened your eyes, you'd realise there is no cat there. It's like how you said that mass attracts mass, but that's not gravity, or how one can move about in three dimensions, but that's not space. You can poke the molecular interactions, but it is not a cat.
>model of spacetime Again, any attempt to describe a cat is merely a model, and therefor any properties attributed to the cat are only done so because you've bought into the delusion.
Learn to see truth. If all the properties and phenomena ascribed to gravity aren't gravity (mass attracting mass, attraction proportional to mass, phenomena such as gravitational lensing, orbital dynamics, and black holes), and the properties ascribed to space aren't space (dimensions, warping due to the presence of mass, the ability to move about), then the properties ascribed to cats aren't of cats. I can attribute them to other things, claim those who believe in cats is deluded, and say I'm smarter than all biologists because I know cats don't exist. But I haven't shown that cats don't exist. I've merely handwaved away all evidence of cats - in the same way you handwave away things like gravity and space.
>but I can touch a cat You can't. Your molecules will interact with the entity's molecules, and you will claim to have touched a cat, but only because you're deluded into believing cats exist.
I can move in space and exist in time. These are apparent properties of the thing we call space. You object to this saying it's not material enough. Well then, a bundle of molecules and light is not enough to prove cats to me. You have to give me an actual property of cat-ness, which you can't do, because my standards are too high to ever be satisfied.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 19:23:30 No. 12533097 Report >>12532159 "ROCK GO TO ROCK, ME CALL GRAVITY"
"ME FORGET TO WATCH APPLE EVAPORATE AFTER 2 WEEKS"
Wonder why it does that.
>>12532945 >making this same thread I have made not one single thread on this shit board, I'm lucky a butthurt janny hasn't deleted my posts yet like the last dozen times.
>>12532598 >Yes, GR is heavily tested, schizo. SO TELL ME WHAT SPACE IS KTHX.
>That's true for a mechanical waveform, not EM waveforms, which travel fine through a vacuum Ah yes, there's another wallop GR gives. The absurd notion that something can travel in nothing. I refuse to believe in such nonsense, just as it refuses to provide evidence of such nonsense.
>Events have locations in space, space doesn't have a location in space So you can't show me space?
>All I can do is show you the effects of curved space on objects in space "Yes". you show me "space" with "not space" aka "the object". What the fuck is "it" that is being curved that you are calling "Space"?
>Mass and energy curve it How? How do these things of a measurable nature curve "Space"? I still have yet to hear an explanation or proof of what the phenomena "space" is other than a fancy description/concept/idea.
>If you want to know the equations for how exactly it curves, pick up a textbook. I don't care about descriptions, I want the proof.
It's not, by definition.
Well at least according to Aristotle it is the measure of motion. According to the backwards ass theory that is GR it's somehow a "dimension" which makes no sense nor has it been shown as being such. It is described as such, and descriptions are not explanations.
>Apparently you want reality without models I'm asking for proof, yeah.
>which is like asking for meaning without language >monkey chirps give meaning to things No, action does. So commit the action of showing proof of your poppycock monkey chirps that you claim have meaning.
Anonymous
>>12533097 >"ROCK GO TO ROCK, ME CALL GRAVITY" >"ME FORGET TO WATCH APPLE EVAPORATE AFTER 2 WEEKS" >Wonder why it does that. is that a yes?
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 19:51:57 No. 12533185 Report >>12532598 >The only reason you're asking is so that you can set an impossible standard of proof in order to avoid reality. >yes asking for the proof of something in reality as it is is avoiding reality The only person doing that is you. Every time you spout "spacetime" you just ignore reality and substitute it with a description with no proof. You can't show me space, all you can do is shown me mode and describe it.
>>12532997 >And we call that attraction gravity. So when I take a magnet and a nail fly's up to it is that gravity too? It's "mass attracting mass" so because it's described and observed as doing such, it must be right?
>You believe in gravity yet call it fiction. "Force of gravity" yes. Describing accelerating mass as "gravity"...it's just a name. What causes the force?
>>12533044 >just the physical phenomena you've attributed to a cat. yes
>that's actually electromagnetic phenomena you then ascribe to the cat. sure, why not
>If you opened your eyes, you'd realise there is no cat there my eyes don't control the properties of the cat though...
>how one can move about in three dimensions, but that's not space. It's a description of Cartesian coordinates.
>I've merely handwaved away all evidence of cats Dumb, considering you just listed a shit ton of stuff that proves they're something to be studied
>in the same way you handwave away things like gravity and space. Yeah but those have no evidence. That's what I'm asking for. It's not like your cat that can be measured and has properties(like you said it did).
>Well then, a bundle of molecules and light is not enough to prove cats to me. But at least you have "the molecules" and "light" to measure. What do you measure and call "space"? Does it give off energy and light like a cat? What's being measured?
>give me an actual property of cat-ness, You already measured properties of it. It's "something", debatable what you want to call it. Not debatable to deny its existence, temporary though it may be.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12526788 Thank you for calling them Einstein-Hilbert equations.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 19:56:11 No. 12533194 Report >>12533115 You tell me if that actually answers anything of use. "Rock go to rock" is what every bum on the planet is capable of describing. Care to tell me why it does that? Did Newton bother to answer how mass did that? Or did he just re-describe "rock go to rock", only as a mathematical description instead? Don't get me wrong, it's useful to have it described in math so you can plug it into an equation and make things "work" and predict shit, but wouldn't it be helpful to know how/why mass does this?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533097 >TELL ME WHAT SPACE IS!!! It is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects have relative position and direction. In other words, it is the place in which things exist.
>inb4 BUT I CAN'T TOUCH IT SO IT'S NOT REAL!!! Your stupidity is not an argument.
>something cannot travel through nothing I can roll a ball in a vacuum chamber just fine. Also, light perpetuates just fine through space without a medium. Sorry, the aether was disproved.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment I'm sorry that the real world doesn't bend to your intuition, but the mark of a true scientist is when they do not reject findings simply because they are unintuitive.
>you can't show me space Take a step in any direction. Congratulations, you have discovered space.
>inb4 YOU DON'T HAVE PICTURES SO IT'S NOT REAL! WAAAH! Again, your own inability to comprehend space is not an argument.
>how do mass and energy curve space If you can't comprehend the mere idea of space, I really doubt you could understand the mechanics of something that physicists are still working out.
>inb4 HAHAHA YOU DON'T KNOW THEREFORE IT'S ALL WRONG Not how science works. The current models match up with reality quite well, so they will be used until better models are devised.
>equations aren't proof, just deacriptions Nothing is proof to you, schizo. Equations describe reality. If they don't match up to reality, they are discarded. They are the closest we get to proof.
>hahaha only descriptions Yes, that is what science is. It describes reality, it does not make reality. What more do you want.
>inb4 I want "proof" And what would constitute "proof" to you?
>I want proof without models Not how science works. See above.
>give me proof Give me proof of cats, schizo. You can only describe cats and show me pictures that you claim to be cats. You can't prove cats because cats don't exist, and I know cats don't exist because I've decided they don't, just like you have with GR.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533194 You can only describe a cat. You can't tell me why is cat. Therefore cats are not real. They are merely useful descriptors and nothing more.
Your method of science is as dumb as it is useless.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 >t. university drop-out tesla Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 20:12:38 No. 12533242 Report >>12532493 >It can be So it's both a measurement and something? Leave it to the GR fanboy to bring in the dualistic bullshit.
>It's the amount of space between two things >space is the amount of space and back to circular reasoning
>What about it makes no sense? I suppose if it's pure measurement, you could subdivide it more. But what's being measured?
>Because no one cares. you sure like to stress that point a long in long reply chains.
>Yes you are, since all descriptions of reality are a model. "No". I am asking for the actual proof. Not a description. This is the last time I'm going to repeat that.
>Your excuse for not accepting scientific facts is that they are in the form all facts are in. Empirical evidence? SO SHOW ME SPACE AND TIME.
>The evidence is in my posts Your "evidence" is a pants on head retarded description of imaginary nonsense.
>Correct. So stop mentioning GR and spacetime then, moron.
>The evidence supporting the model is evidence, and that's what I gave you. You never showed me space or time, never proved their existence, never gave me a property. Other than what GR claims they have, but as you agreed a model isn't evidence.
>If it doesn't operate or fly the same then it's empirically invalidated, So show me "time" or "space". Let me guess you'll accurately describe it and call it proof again right?
>You're already looking at it, My computer screen is now space?
>You're already measuring it measuring it? What properties am I measuring? How much "nothing" there is?
>Still gibberish. Use English. Use a fucking dictionary then you moron.
>Which is no more informative than saying it slows down to pass through glass Now explain why?
>It's absorbed and emitted by the medium "Yes". It's "Capacitated". The light coming out is not the same form it was before it passed. This is observable in polarization and other mediums as you state.
>It has nothing to do with glass being a capacitor. The"glass is a medium altering the wavelength.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533097 >SO TELL ME WHAT SPACE IS I already did, schizo.
>Ah yes, there's another wallop GR gives. LOL, GR has nothing to do with it.
>I refuse to believe in such nonsense So you have no evidence or reasoning. Very scientific.
>just as it refuses to provide evidence of such nonsense. Light travels in a vacuum, this is observed every day, schizo freak.
>So you can't show me space? You're already in space, what is there to show?
>you show me "space" with "not space" aka "the object". No, every object is in space. It would be impossible to show you an object without space. Ass backwards schizo.
>What the fuck is "it" that is being curved that you are calling "Space"? I already told you, schizo.
>How do these things of a measurable nature curve "Space"? If you want to know the equations for how exactly it curves, pick up a textbook.
>I still have yet to hear an explanation or proof of what the phenomena "space" is other than a fancy description/concept/idea. The explanation is what you were given, the proof is the empirical evidence for GR that you were given. You're literally complaining about getting everything you asked for. You're pathetic.
>I don't care about descriptions, I want the proof. You already got it. You just can't face reality.
>Well at least according to Aristotle it is the measure of motion. I don't care what you think Aristotle thought.
>According to the backwards ass theory that is GR it's somehow a "dimension" which makes no sense What about it doesn't make sense?
>descriptions are not explanations. It's a description and an explanation.
>I'm asking for proof, yeah. The proof is the empirical validation of the model. That's the only proof pertaining to reality you are going to get, schizo.
>>monkey chirps give meaning to things I didn't say give meaning, I said you can't have meaning without language.
>No, action does. The empirical evidence supporting GR was obtained through action and was already given to you.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 20:17:14 No. 12533257 Report >>12532493 >No, they're not. They are, dependent on what other mediums are around them. That's why material such as glass can and is used for making both capacitors and insulators. This is a fact.
>This doesn't answer my question. What is there when there is no light, no medium, no interaction whatsoever? What would be definable? I can't answer myself, maybe you'd know?
>It would continue existing, but the absence of light would cause various changes. Existing as..what? Mass is an EM phenomena. Where's it going to get it's energy that props it into existence in the first place? What's going to charge it? Where's it going to discharge? There would be a lack of interaction because there would be no means for interaction.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Fri 01 Jan 2021 20:28:34 No. 12533283 Report >Light travels in a vacuum >So you have no evidence or reasoning. >proof of an absence/vacuum >this is observed every day, >I don't care what you think Aristotle thought. >What about it doesn't make sense? >I said you can't have meaning without language. >Monkey chirps give meaning to things >The empirical evidence supporting GR was obtained through action >Waaah I already showed you my descriptionss skitso!!!
Anonymous
>>12533194 >"Rock go to rock" is what every bum on the planet is capable of describing. not every bum on the planet is capable of giving the equation which correctly predicts motion of real objects. this is what Newton did, and it's essentially also what Einstein did, only better and with a lot more complicated math.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533185 >>yes asking for the proof of something in reality as it is is avoiding reality You were already given proof, you're asking for proof but not in the form of proof.
>You can't show me space You're already in it.
>all you can do is shown me mode and describe it. And prove it. That's as good as it's going to get, schizo. Get over it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533283 The more I read your drivel, the more I realize you're so stuck up your own ass that it's impossible to reason with you. The fact that people have enough patience to even try and communicate with you is a herculean effort in and of itself.
I myself have come to the realization that you are incapable of understanding what's being talked about not because of stupidity (though that's part of it) but an absolute refusal to accept the evidence. All evidence placed before you gets handwaved away, and when you're cornered you switch to philosophical arguments rather than scientific ones.
"Show me proof!" you demand. Then, when people show you mountains of evidence, including equations - another word of which is "proof" - you claim that is merely a description and not proof. Yet you give no indication as to what counts as "proof" to you.
You are an ignorant fool, and the most satisfying thing about this is knowing that your greatest scientific accomplishment is arguing with random people on a Vietnamese curling forum. You are not some enlightened man of reason, but a schizo, incapable of going anywhere outsode your computer room.
Have fun being ignored by society at large.
Anonymous
>>12533242 >So it's both a measurement and something? No, it can be a measurement of an amount of space or it can just be an amount of space. Dumb schizo.
>>space is the amount of space Who are you quoting, schizo? Learn how to read.
>I suppose if it's pure measurement, you could subdivide it more. Doesn't answer the question.
>But what's being measured? Space.
>"No". I am asking for the actual proof. Not a description. Too bad, schizo. Any proof will be a description. Get over it.
>This is the last time I'm going to repeat that. Thank God.
>Empirical evidence? Yes.
>SO SHOW ME SPACE AND TIME You're already in it.
>Your "evidence" is a pants on head retarded description of imaginary nonsense. Why?
>So stop mentioning GR and spacetime then, moron. No.
>You never showed me space or time You're already in it.
>never proved their existence, never gave me a property. Why do you continue to lie?
>Other than what GR claims they have, but as you agreed a model isn't evidence. The model is proven by evidence, so space and time exist and have the properties GR describes. Game over, unless you can argue against the evidence, which you never will.
>So show me "time" or "space". You're already in it.
>My computer screen is now space? It's in space.
>What properties am I measuring? Distance.
>Use a fucking dictionary then you moron. I did, capicitated makes no sense in the context you're using it.
>Now explain why? Because capacitate just means to make something capable of doing something. So are you saying glass allows light to pass through it? Are you saying glass makes light capable of moving slower? It's not informative, just ambiguous language meant to give the illusion of being informative.
>The light coming out is not the same form it was before it passed. How does that explain how it passed through the glass slower?
>The"glass is a medium altering the wavelength. That's not what a capacitor does, schizo.
Anonymous
>>12533257 >They are, dependent on what other mediums are around them. Glass is allowed by any medium regardless of what other media are around. Wrong again, schizo.
>That's why material such as glass can and is used for making both capacitors and insulators. Glass is used as a dielectric medium, it is not the capacitor itself, schizo.
>There would be a lack of interaction because there would be no means for interaction. You're not answering my question. A lack of interaction can still be a cause. If I step into a shadow, the lack of interaction with sunlight causes my temperature to decrease.
Anonymous
>>12533242 you're basically asking the question "why do things attract each other" or "why do things move" and the answer is that we don't know, period. Newton would say it's because of his law of universal gravitation, but that just rephrases the question as "why is a certain differential equation defined on a three-dimensional vector space a good mathematical model of how things move" and the answer is that we don't know. Einstein would say it's because of the curvature of spacetime but that just rephrases the question as "why is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with Einstein's field equation a good mathematical model of how things move" and the answer is we don't know.
Anonymous
>>12525318 Now I don't know if I am missing the point or whether it is a case of ratios or something, I never studied physics. But they say gravity is the weakest force, yet gravity is able to pull planets together and have boulders rolling down hills, wouldn't this make it a very strong force?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533491 Basically, it's strong on a macro scale when objects have virtually no other energy imparted to them, but it's comparatively weak compared to the other fundamental forces.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 Gravity is just energy returning to the mean. Reality isn't actually a "thing", it's actually a collection of superpositions of a singular 1-dimension point. You have nothing, "0", you have something, "1", and then you have the infinite possibilitirs between that comprises reality.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533491 >gravity is able to pull planets together and have boulders rolling down hills "Weak" is relative. It takes an entire planet's gravitational pull to hold you down. Electromagnetic force is actually what binds solid objects (such as the boulder) together.
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash
Hertzian Technology is archaic, primitive trash Sat 02 Jan 2021 00:03:00 No. 12533969 Report >>12533425 >it can be a measurement of an amount of space or it can just be an amount of space. What does space amount to? What is space?
>Who are you quoting, schizo >what properties of space are you measuring? >distance(you) >is that not a measurement? >it can be. It's the amount of space between two things(you) "Space has the properties of the amount of space between two things", which is circualar.
>Doesn't answer the question. I can't until you show me what space is. How is it subdividable? What is divisible about it?
>Space That's what I've been told endlessly yet I never see it.
>Any proof will be a description From you yeah. If you honestly believe this then I won't bother you with another reply.
>Thank God. Your God is "Space"
>>12533447 >Glass is allowed by any medium regardless of what other media are around. allowed what? I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
>Glass is used as a dielectric medium "Matter" is a dielectric medium.
>it is not the capacitor itself, the light loses energy in the glass, where does it go?
>A lack of interaction can still be a cause >A lack is something "No". It's absurd.
>You're not answering my question There's a lack of information
>the lack of interaction with sunlight causes my temperature to decrease Yes. A lack. Define a lack. It's "lost". The properties are lost, not caused.
>>12533469 "This thread" the post. Who's the next person going to claim they know but actually don't? Any takers?
>>12533325 >not every bum on the planet is capable of giving the equation which correctly predicts motion of real objects Which is why I said the math is useful for that.
>this is what Newton did, and it's essentially also what Einstein did, only better and with a lot more complicated math. "Yes". Now what causes the phenomena we call "gravity"? Math itself?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533969 >Einstein and Newton described gravity - what causes it? Physicists are still working on it, but we have ideas. But you've admitted gravity exists. Sure you can default to "WAAAAH THEY JUST DESCRIBED IT," but that's what science does. It describes reality.
Currently, our models are accurate enough to describe numerous phenomena in ways that are not only harmonious with reality but have real-life utility. GPS satellites have to be attuned due to time dilation, so there's proof that those "descriptions" hold weight.
You can keep asking why, but the lack of a base cause of gravity doesn't suddenly invalidate the whole theory. It means there is work to be done.
>WAAAH, WHAT IS SPACE This has been explained to you over and over again. It is a three dimensional extent in which objects have relative position and direction.
>indb4 WAAAH YOU CAN'T SHOW ME PICTURES!!! That's because space is seemingly a property of the universe, not a tangible object you can hold. Move in any direction, and you will discover space.
>inb4 BUT THAT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Possibly, but as far as modern physics are concerned, it works great for explaining reality and making predictions that are then validated through observation amd experimentation - the essence of true science. Again, GPS satellites have to be adjusted due to time dilation, so, to some degree, GR is real.
At this point, you've admitted all these phenomena are real and just refuse to accept the conclusion. The cognitive dissonance must be painful.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533969 To further elaborate on the space dilemma you have: what is mass?
You cannot take a picture of mass. You cannot hold mass. Objects have mass, but they are not mass itself. Mass is a concept we measure in kg, but we cannot actual touch mass or explain, truly, what mass "is."
Moreover, why do objects have mass? Why is there mass in the universe? We don't know, but that doesn't then invalidate mass and all theories associated with it.
The same goes with space. Space is a fundamental quantity of the universe that, at this time, cannot be reduced. You can measure space and the amount of space something occupies or does not occupy, but the concept cannot, right now, be reduced any further.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>this garbage is still up
Anonymous
>>12533969 >"This thread" the post. Who's the next person going to claim they know but actually don't? Any takers? The Universe is at the surface of a 4D sphere that's contracting.
Anonymous
>>12534565 I agree except its actually expanding.
Anonymous
>>12534606 That would cause things to drift apart, retard.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 Based flat earther
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12525318 Your predicate is not real. Postulate is nonsense and you're a dumbfuck.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533283 >now show me a true vacuum. Why?
>Actually, show me light "traveling". You were already given several examples.
>I have absolutely no evidence regarding the existence of an absence let alone something traveling in an absence. Nor any reasoning. "That's absurd!" Is not an argument.
>not a true vacuum though Hmmm so a few atoms per m3 is not a "true vacuum" for light? What about in between the atoms?
>Do you care what he actually thought though? No, not really. What does Aristotle have to do with anything?
>What you think I'm lying? Yes, you have been throughout this thread. Prove it or don't, it's irrelevant either way.
>Time is a measure, not a dimension Wrong. Answer the question.
>And I say the same thing Then stop asking for meaning without language.
>Yeah, the "action" of describing non existent bullshit with no proof. The proof was already given to you, schizo.
>Show me proof of space. I already did.
>Explain how it's measurable and has properties. I already did.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>12533969 >What does space amount to? Space. Dumb question.
>What is space? Already told you, schizo.
>"Space has the properties of the amount of space between two things" which is circualar It's only circular insofar as your question was. What are you measuring when you measure X? The amount of X.
>I can't until you show me what space is. I already did, you can't answer the question because it does make sense and you're lying. Stop making excuses.
>How is it subdividable? What is divisible about it? It has a subdividable metric. What makes intervals on a number line divisible?
>That's what I've been told endlessly yet I never see it. You do, you're just in denial.
>From you yeah From anyone.
>If you honestly believe this then I won't bother you with another reply. Good.
>allowed what? Light is slowed by any medium.
>"Matter" is a dielectric medium. Completely wrong. If that were true then there would be no electrical conductors. You are a moron.
>the light loses energy in the glass, where does it go? It doesn't lose energy! Its speed and wavelength decrease by the same factor, the refractive index. So its frequency and energy remain the same. Moron!
A capacitor on the other hand stores energy by creating an electric field. One has nothing to do with the other.
>It's absurd. Not an argument. Try again.
>There's a lack of information The only lack of information is your own when making these idiotic claims.
>Define a lack. Absence of.
>The properties are lost, not caused. The temperature decrease is caused by a lack of interaction.
