/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15286238
>its motion is described
Hey look a shadow moved! It must be real!

>>15286244
>What it "does" is, have
Lol, lmao. Take an english class sometime you absolute twit.

>You are sounding less and less
Pretty rich coming from someone who defines light using privation. The only one here lacking is you, now on your way to quote me another non-experiment.

>>15285189
>I know
Who are you quoting, Mr. quote ability doubter?

>>15156141
>we are in total agreement. that is exactly the point of the box paradox
The paradox assumes the existence of a vacuum by attempting to set up conditions impossible for the experiment to be performed.
>the alleged vacuum of space doesnt exist and neither does gravity. both are just unsubstantiated abstract concepts that only exist in the imagination of men.
And it doesn't stop you from making dozens of posts about nothing does it? Shadow chasing is a hell of a drug. Just simply ask for proof of a vacuum/space and ignore the broken record flat earth CIA shill posts and save yourself some time.

>>15156144
It's the most popular psychosis on the planet

>>14935918
>People here often state that black holes aren't real.
Because there is no proof of them, yes
>What are the massive, dark and compact objects at the core of galaxies then?
You tell us?
>I've heard people say that pic rel is just stars orbiting something akin to the eye of a hurricane, that there is no mass there.
If there is "none of the hurricane" in the eye of the hurricane...why do you think there would be mass at the center of a galactic sized hurricane?
>I could be wrong but the orbits seem too extreme for it to be an eye, such a thing would be larger given the size of the galaxy.
It isn't anything at all. It's as real as a shadow. Would you chase a shadow if the light around it was causing it to be circular shaped? How many names would you give to a shadow before you figured out they don't actually exist?

>>14875556
>Space is a super fluid in which all the objects we call "matter" float in.
It's re-described aether then.? The point was that it was supposed to not be that. It has attributes like a shadow, but also no properties. No substance, privation. If it is lack, it has nothing to "float" them with.

>You are playing word games.
"Space" is the word game at this point since it's more or less just re-described aether as you're implying.

>"Space" implies a lack of properties.
So how could we "float in it"? It's a complete phantasm...again like a shadow.

>>14821007
>Relativity is as equally empirically proven as conservation of momentum.
This can be construed in multiple ways.

>>14821831
>>14821864

>Light's speed is different depending on the medium. I'm sure you can find an experiment on youtube demonstrating this with water or a prism or something.
The "Speed of light" is a misconception that has turned a complete non-issue into one of the biggest pop-sci mantras repeated relativists. They think it's something traveling when the reality of the matter is that it's simply a phenomena induced to exist depending on the conditions present (the medium as you say). No medium, no light. It's like saying "speed of a shadow". I see those too, and they move...along with the light. They are as phenomenal as the light, they even are observed to cause things like light does.

"c" is bullshit because:
a. To imply "Light "in a vacuum", or imply that such a thing is possible is a contradiction. The light would negate it being a "vacuum" in the first place. This "vacuum" couldn't exist and if it were a true vacuum then there would be no "wave", no energy, no medium for light to propagate in. It couldn't exist, it's incomprehensible to imply it could.
b. The "constant", is really not constant at all. It changes depending on the medium. It also "ceases to exist" when the conditions aren't there to induce it to be the phantasmic dazzle show dubbed "photons", when it's the equivalent to splashing a pond that was...already there in the first place. You're just observing what was already there...being splashed about in a coherent fashion and then calling that a discrete thing in and of itself, and saying it "has a speed". The "speed" is completely irrelevant to what's actually occurring.

>>14698850
>this was described
>therefore it's true

By the way I said "confuses and complexes thought". No amount of past/present verb forms or rollings r's will ever amount to a thought worth hotdog water.

>>14692833
>So are stars and elephants, that's not a useful description.
Neither is "black hole" and defining it with everything else but what it actually is..which is what exactly? Oh right, you don't know lol.

>To explain quasars without a black hole
To "explain" what a black hole is is incomprehensible to you people because you made it up. It's laughable.

>>14693301
>This thing is what makes a black hole so bright
>Can't explain or actually show what a "Black hole" even is.

Professional shadow chasing.

>>14657140
>>14659440
>>14659460
>Shadows have properties

They are dimensionless, namely because they don't exist.

>>14499086
>Of you can’t figure out that graph then you have no business discussing any of this
Well shit if you can't figure out this graph >>14499044 then you don't have any business discussing murderers in hollywood.

>>14499110
>How do you explain this?
This is post on an anonymous imageboard that contains a graph with numbers, lines and descriptions with no explanation as to how those descriptions were conjured.

>Or are you denying simple physical measurements?
I am not denying that a shadow can be measured, I can measure them afterall so that must make them real.

>>12497935
>What's your idea of how a ufo (alien space ship) could theoretically fly?
"Unidentifiedly", is how. Also, what makes you think they're "alien"?

>If we use Einstein's idea of spacetime, is there some way to make it work?
Space and time have no properties and act upon nothing.

>Not talking warp drive.
What is it that's being "warped" anyway? Certainly not "space" or "time" (because they have no properties to be warped obviously)

>Do we need a better understanding of what space is?
"It is actually something?" would be a great start. How about we begin by testing it in an experiment of some kind, and if we can't actually find "it" to put in said experiment then we know it doesn't exist.

>>12498481
>anti-gravity with an electrical antenna
"Gravity" was never something to be negated in the first place if it was simply an electrical phenomena the entire time.

>>12498986
This guy is the most correct out of all of you given the premise of OP's Question. Don't forget to add a shot of [EXPURGATED] at the end.

>>12258321
>no don't say that!
Why?