/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14415483

264KiB, 756x1000, soistein.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 13:52:48 2022 No.14415483 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>14415561 >>14415809 >>14417350 >>14417974 >>14418061 >>14418726 >>14418999

>let's endlessly split hairs over a thousand different interpretations of quantum mechanics

>you DARE suggesting Einstein's relativity needs reinterpretation? Impossible! The Science is settled!

Why are scientists like this? The onus of the problem of time is 100% on relativity, since it redefines time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

This is a serious question, not a troll thread.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4chan moderator.jpg, 72KiB, 600x455

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 14:05:56 No.14415503 Report

Quoted By: >>14415595

jannie will delete comments like this every time because mods are jews and jews interpret questioning einstein as racism. picrel bignose is a mod here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 14:33:38 No.14415550 Report

Quoted By:

>not a troll thread
>posting soijack
>calling out janny
Yes, it's not a troll thread. Just like I'm not calling you a retard, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 14:37:58 No.14415560 Report

Quoted By:

do you have a degree in physics? you come across as a dilettante with no real understanding of the issue you are referring to

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 14:38:16 No.14415561 Report

Quoted By: >>14418999

>>14415483
>let's endlessly split hairs over a thousand different interpretations of quantum mechanics
Said no physicist ever

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 14:49:41 No.14415595 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415503
Is she really a 4chan mod

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Apr 2022 16:09:25 No.14415809 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415483
>This is a serious question, not a troll thread.
This is a troll thread, with evidence from content and also from the OP pic.
DO NOT REPLY TO SOIJAKS
DO NOT BUMP SOIJAKS

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 03:18:23 No.14417350 Report

Quoted By: >>14417360 >>14417853 >>14417980 >>14417981 >>14418999

>>14415483
So what's the alternative to relativity then, and what problems would it solve/break?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 03:24:52 No.14417360 Report

Quoted By: >>14417363 >>14418730 >>14418999

>>14417350
Well what problems has relativity solved?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 03:27:08 No.14417363 Report

Quoted By:

>>14417360
Sorry, problems isn't really the right word. I mean more like other theories, since there has to be a lot of work based off of relativity, and a lot of scientific holes that could be solved by a non-relativistic view of the universe.

bodhi

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO COL.png, 709KiB, 995x2442

bodhi Fri 22 Apr 2022 08:57:23 No.14417853 Report

Quoted By:

>>14417350

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 11:23:27 No.14417974 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415483
>onus
lol onus

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 11:29:03 No.14417980 Report

Quoted By: >>14417981

>>14417350
The alternative to relativity is to explain it mechanically with the aether, an ideal fluid that causes electromagnetism and relativistic effects, not unlike the explanation of the Aristotelian theory of impetus (all moving bodies come to a stop when they exhaust their 'impetus') mechanically with the air (air resistance is what stops them).
The obvious way to do it is to postulate Lorentz contraction of objects in motion as a physical effect, and to repeat optical experiments in other fluids such as air or water to ascertain its nature.

Theoretically, quantum mechanics is at odds with relativistic spacetime, being incompatible with general relativity (the problem of time), and requiring a trilemma between determinism, causality and relativistic spacetime in order to be united with special relativity (EPR paradox).
Quantum mechanics also seems to like to be fluid. You have de Broglie-Bohm theory, Madelung's hydrodynamic equations, and stochastic mechanics which derives Schroedinger's equation from Brownian motion in an ideal fluid.

Superfluids also act as ideal fluids, giving further validation to the study of ideal fluids in physics.
'Superfluid vacuum' theories are aether in disguise, as is all the talk about the active 'quantum vacuum' and its 'fluctuations', as there is nothing mystical about a fluid having fluctuations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 11:30:04 No.14417981 Report

Quoted By: >>14418066

>>14417350
>>14417980
Practically, the theory of metamaterials and metafluids is founded upon the hydrodynamic analogy of electromagnetism as happening in an ideal fluid, which is aether theory without saying it is aether. (Marmanis 1998, "Analogy between the Navier–Stokes equations and Maxwell’s equations: Application to turbulence" and similar)
The analogy is so deep that one can find an hydrodynamic analog of electric charge, called hydrodynamic charge. ("On the Lamb Vector and Hydrodynamic Charge")
Vorticity and turbulence appear to be key elements, as reminiscent of Maxwell's theory of vortices, and Lord Kelvin's theory of vortex atoms in particular.

Experimentally, the Aharonov-Bohm effect and similar give strong evidence in favour of the physicality of the electromagnetic potentials, of which A, under the 'hydrodynamic analogy' and thus according to aether theory, is the velocity field of the ideal fluid aether.

The idea that there is an ideal fluid behind electromagnetic phenomena, as the founders of electromagnetism believed, appears to be fruitful enough that there is no reason for it to be anathema in academia, compared to less fruitful ideas such as string theory and supersymmetry, which at best seek to solve one problem in an ad hoc way by introducing more questions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 12:34:37 No.14418061 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415483
interpretation of something is not the same as the thing itself. The mathematics of quantum mechanics are not in question, what is in question is our attempts to actually make some kind of intuitive sense of this weirdness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 12:37:16 No.14418066 Report

Quoted By: >>14418201

>>14417981
>metamaterial
>metafluid
stopped reading. kys pseud.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 13:57:31 No.14418201 Report

Quoted By: >>14418999

>>14418066
They're actually called that way, not my fault. They are an actual thing that works.
You might as well call me a pseud because I talked about superdupermegafluids even though superfluid helium exists.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 18:23:50 No.14418726 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415483
the difference is Einstein was a jew

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 18:24:55 No.14418730 Report

Quoted By: >>14418999

>>14417360
GPS

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 19:26:42 No.14418895 Report

Quoted By:

>The Science is settled!

I've only heard this phrase when it's used as a strawman argument, never unironically. The whole point of the scientific method is that statements are never settled and everything is falsifiable

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1602998202869.jpg, 219KiB, 1125x1115

Anonymous Fri 22 Apr 2022 20:15:17 No.14418999 Report

Quoted By:

>>14415483
>Defining that which has no ontology in the first place.
>>14415561
>physicist
That's all they say, it deals with quantifying that which is "physical".
>>14417350
>Alternate to that which was never right
"Yes".
>>14417360
>>14418730
At no point has GPS ever relied on Einsteins Velocity Composition laws, or if they have then the Department of Defense has not elaborated/confirmed such due to redactions/secrets kept about the workings of it. It gets mentioned occasionally by literal who's who have "worked on GPS", but have not actually developed or confirmed any satellite that uses such systems. They most likely don't use them because they were never experimentally verified.

>>14418201
They're actually called that way, not my fault. They are an actual thing that works.
It's nothing specific, and that's how it actually works. It's also why they keep calling it a million names like "Higgs Field", "Quantum foam", "Dark matter", "Black holes", "Zero point".

One might say "Oh well all those are completely different and discrete things", and yet there is no actual evidence of any of the things I just mentioned, so who are they to actually say that? At best they are simply accurate describers.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches