/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15887305
>wait, is this true?
Replication crisis.

>Didn't we prove the Earth's spin twists space around it?
Space? How do you test space? It has no properties to test. This is why you need the juicy quotes.

He was low key onto something

>>15358712
>>15358793
>>15354724
>Be Tesla
>Adamantly and repeatedly states in the prime of his career that his inventions are "non-hertzian" based technology
>Fast forward
>Retard after retard keeps trying to replicate your experiments using Archaic Herzian waveform "electricity".
>Be John Trump, have all of this information at your disposal, patents, writings everything
>Replicate his experiments doing the same fucking thing, using Hertzian based technology.

People still do it to this day and think they're hot shit because they can waste their time coiling magnet wires hundreds of times over and over to reproduce some sparking woo that amounts to nothing other than a waste of power. They also fellatio radio, despite being another technology Tesla shit on repeatedly.

>>15229207
>EM has a transmission speed
It doesn't exist unless the conditions are present to make it so. If it had a speed then no synchronized generator on earth would function right now the way it does (synchronized across hundreds of miles instantaneously as not to explode transformers).

>>15229220
>Site you never heard of releases Department of Defense secrets
Take your meds, schizo.

>>15225397
Wow it only took them over a HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS to realize that space and time aren't real but merely constructs, space is what we call the absences of and time is merely a measure. This along with that Versatium vid about electricity taking place in the field around the wire shows how fucking retarded humanity has been for a hundred or so years.

>>15201742
>If emission couldn't occur in vacuum
One negates the other. It makes no sense.

>vacuum
There is no such thing. Something cannot travel in nothing, it makes no sense. They're sealed with "less air" which means less resistance for that circuit to still form.

>>15182659
>How does spacetime distort without being a material?
"Buy this book"/"you're a flat earther"/"because of measures". This is half of the responses you'll get for daring to ask such a question.

>>15155981
>You just don’t want to admit it bc that would entail giving up your worldview.
Worldview? I simply accurately described what "gravity" "is" recognized as for what it is. I never said anything about me believing in it.

>Semantics
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were discussing something that actually has some sort of "meaning" in the first place. How can "it"? "It" has no properties and acts upon nothing. What even is a "Vacuum"? Tell me if you wouldn't mind?

>Lol is that really the best you got?
What do you expect? I've been given nothing to work with here. Maybe I will start arguing with you when you give me proof of this alleged something to argue over. I get that you're so smart that you finally figured out gravity is a description...but you're still stuck falsely reifying something else that is nothing but...what? Can you even?

>>15127163
>Call it retarded
You're on the nose. It literally is retardation. An unmoved, torpid, hysteresis. To say it "does this" is even more retarded though.

>Space is a fluid that flows.
Then you're just using another word for "Aether".

>a black hole.
Someone post the blackhole copypasta, you know the one about it being completely non-existent yet somehow fascinating to the mundane.

>The speed of light
We have proof light travels now? Why do you think it travels when you also simultaneously believe that space is just a fluid? "Movement" is just displacement of the medium at that point. How is that a speed? How can you reconcile it?

>>14997333
>GR is a thought experiment from SR
No but it's still all fake and gay none the less. Nice attempt though.

>then what defines whether Bob is accelerating relative to the rest of the universe, or whether the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to Bob?
"yes"

>>14875040
>according to the materialist hack paradigm, space isn't a "thing".
To my knowledge every "materialist" has done the exact opposite though. Some even claiming it can warp and have properties to measure. Only a "thing" with actual properties, substantial..actually "something" could do this. Space is just....defined by everything else it isn't.

>They are wrong however and thinking nothingness and space are synonymous will always limit your thinking in a false paradigm.
That's great and all, but it doesn't tell me what space is :C.

>That space is still contained in the "one" (orphic egg) and is filled with aether.
So it's "filled space" lol.

>"somethingness" isnt encroaching into "nothingness" and turning space into "something" whereas it used to be "nothing."
from nothing comes nothing. There is always "something". Even if you were to break down everything into subjectivity, "space" still manages to be the fakes gayest shit out of all the fake gay things..

>>14783626
>pls buy my book where I disprove Einstein
I know right? Imagine trying to disprove what was never true.
>I promise I didn't make any stupid assumptions that contradict reality!
Like assuming space has properties to warp?

>>11765300
>we're talking questioning the relativistic nature spacetime because the charge density is so high.
Dielectric is instantaneous. It's the same reason lighting arresters don't work and the stuff in your house will get fucked anyway. Smaller the space, the higher capacitance like how light is more dangerous and powerful the smaller the wavelength. What is already present is induced, it has nothing to do with "space" "spacetime" or standards of measure.

>>11427149
It's a vortex in the aether.

>>11354692
I find the notion of a dynamic luminiferous aether to be much more plausible than the alternative suggestion that time and space exist as a singular object.

The consequence of the existence of such an aether are irrelevant. Though, I would still like to enumerate a few for your curiosity.
1. Faster than light travel
2. Superdeterminism
3. Antigravity and inertia dampening

>>11346512
Explain why superdeterminism is depressing and I will point out precisely why you will always be a brainlet and I will always be a wizard.

>>11344276
>Just the old school classical physics.

How can you eat the classical physics blackpill and still utterly fail to recognize that humongous elephant in the room?
We are talking about the great cosmic mystery here.
What is the universe?
A very important question, the question.

It's an object.

>>11328667
It would not effect my evaluation of any claim he made simply because one of his claims was incorrect.

>>11272004
It proved that the outer space behaved like it was in vaccum, which is what mkst of the space is.
>>11273649

What is space? How did it test "space" in the experiment? Which experiment proved the existence of it in reality?

>and for it to be able to transmit waves it has to be a fluid, the properties of fluids that allowed them to transmit waves such as bulk modulus were proven to be non existent with that experiment. Which is why i said it was more than just a negation.

So it "disproved" one theory of the aether? What about the others?

11267836
>>11267831
Can you provide me EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of SPACE and TEST IT IN AN EXPERIMENT like a normal scientist? God fucking damn, how many times must I ask this question? The "realest" space if you need any more clarification, the one that is alleged to ACTUALLY EXIST AS SOMETHING THAT DOES SOMETHING.

>>11213035
thing that has something definable vs effect caused by something (the something being real the effect not). What he's basically saying is space is an effect, but has no real existence because it is purely a privation (of something else that is real). Basically you can't talk about "space" without referring to something else that actually has properties to be defined.

"Space can be curved!"..well what is being curved? The space or the matter you observe?

"there is space in between everything!"...well what is it that is in between everything? Space causes the appearance of separation? No, it's the action of "the thing" causing the appearance of separation. What is this "space" and how would it actually cause anything to happen? It can't "be" an absence, then it definitely wouldn't cause anything nor be definable "as something" to begin with!

>>11209953
>>11209969
>>11209970
>>11210184
“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.” - Nikola Tesla, who repeatedly denied the existence of any particle. His greatest discovery in his own words was the "rotating magnetic field".
You can also look up this stuff yourself if you wish, don't take a random schmuck on the internets word for it.

>>11205001
Is space is real then why does it have no properties?

>>10471274
>who knows.

Well it's not "space". Space has no properties. How is a change in density a "speed"?

>>10431669
waves of what?

>>10431669
perturbations

>>10429781
Everything is fields and fields are not particles. "particles" are quantified mathmatical abstractions used in equations. There is nothing "discrete" about a field since at the center of any field there is "none" of that field.

>>10431275
"Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, ... In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.” -N. Tesla