/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11265937
>Depends on your definition of dark matter.
>The dark matter hypothesized..So not real.
This shit writes itself, I swear to god

>The gravitational lensing we observe is real "enough".
Gravity ultimately does not exist and is not it's own independent "Force".

>I'm saying dark matter is just normal matter.
You just said it doesn't exist.
>Apparently gravity is the only way to detect "dark matter", there is no way to distinguish between gravity coming from normal matter or dark matter.
"it's bullshit"
>Dark matter has never been detected without normal matter
I don't get it, you just said it doesn't exist several times and now you say it has been and has been detected? Make up your mind please.

>That metal sheet will appear to be smaller than it really is, you can't get closer to it or inspect it from any other angle, so using your known density and apparent size, you come up with an estimate for mass that is lower than it's proper mass.
>The person trying to trick you is "hiding" the objects proper size using a 3rd dimension.

>It all works on Euclidean Geometry except for when it doesn't

So basically everything you just said is "it's the aether " given that it all comes down to density. "Of matter" or whatever, but a medium none the less. Literally Aether redescribed with the addition of extra assumed "dimensions". I thought "no dimension" and "having dimension" would have been simple enough but 4 dimensions? The fuck did those come from?

>>10779304
>Wrong, measurement is how you find distance, that doesn't mean distance is a measurement.

So explain what the fuck "distance" is and how it's empirically "something".

>That's like saying an object is an image because you look at an object to determine what it is.

At least you're getting warmer. The only thing that gives definition to the object you're observing is light so in essence it is an "image". It's being projected into your eyes using light and the medium that interferes with it.

>take away all qualities of motion
>thing ceases to exist
>this has anything to do with distance.

>>10530865
>I'm pretty sure I could show you some evidence of there being at least 3 dimensions, pic related.

If only you could actually fucking explain how it's 3 dimensional and how all life comes from what is unmanifested (aka has no dimensional properties). The manifested part is "3 dimensional" but nothing about it is concrete. The only concreteness comes from what projects it (the euclidian geometry). Yes little Timmy, this means you're a hologram. If you're not then cease reproducing all the cells in your body from self-similarity. Also why the fuck do you think a magnet/atoms have the expressed fields that they do? What is in the "donut hole" is what I'm asking. It certainly isn't "3 dimensional", its the absence of dimension. At the center of gravity there is no fucking gravity. At the center of magnetism THERE IS NO FUCKING MAGNETISM.

But "muh math" describes what is observed and measured using a language, it does not explain anything. Nor does pure empirical evidence. For instance, from your picture I "see" a shadow coming from the box. This shadow can be measured, and I could even "feel" the difference in temperature "coming" from it.Yet a shadow does not logically exist. It is the absence of light, a privation of it. It has no means of having a basis in reality because it is literally an absence of something that has the actual properties that it consists of. Absences cannot be reified, they are absent.

>also weren't you talking about particles and electromagnetism? how does your model explain e.g. magnets?

A magnet is a coherent dielectric object. A coherent point-nonspecific hologram that runs on pressure mediation. Slice it and it will turn into another magnet because its nature is holographic and therefore is self-similar to itself. The only thing that differentiates it from gravity is that gravity is incoherent dielectric acceleration and magnet is coherent.