/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14556163
>Tons of replications of Michelson Morley.
Did they all produce the same useless null result too? (yeah they did)
>Writing an ad hoc excuse for one and ignoring the ridiculous number of replications from various methods is just a waste of everyone's time
Redoing the MM experiment over and over is a waste of everyone's time. Bringing up a null result like it means something is also a waste of everyone's time.

>>14556497
>The results he speaks of are null
>posts endlessly about null

>>14557704
>because the speed of light is a constant
Proof of light having a speed let alone a "Constant" one?

>>14557779
>You understand speed of light is a constant, right?
No because there's literally no proof of that being the case.

>>14557868
Another fancy description some academic book learned moron came up with as a coping mechanism for being unable to explain how magnetism works.

>>14558488
>Is there real areas of space that are purely truly Nothing in the universe?
Space has no properties. It acts upon nothing, it couldn't if it tried.

>>14558749
>gravity is the (DESCRIPTION OF MASS ATTRACTING TO MASS), the more quantities you have of (NOT THIS DESCRIPTION) the stronger the (DESCRIPTION OF MASS ATTRACTING TO MASS).
Okay, how does gravity work though?

>>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"?

>>10896090
Waves of what?

shouldnt gravity pull the entire object down immediately? Explain like I’m a child who has asberger

>>10823610
>>10823620
>>10823664

>>10782949
>light
>traveling

It's an electromagnetic effect though.

>>10431727
Have you ever understood what the word "Quantum" means?

>>10431730
How does aether "wave"? By what means?

>Except you can see the particles in a ionization chamber.

>yeah this thing that's an electromagnetic phenomena is reacting with an electric field.
>the reaction is the thing itself.

Cool story bro, now tell me how a "particle" is not a non physical field/perturbation.

>>10396561
>existed
>could possibly exist
>may possibly exist in the future
....and the universe never ends nor begins. It has the most true *existence*. All else is an illusion of it, an imitation of it.

>The fact is that you made a statement that was wrong.
How wrong was it?

>>10302074
>this is dumb
>spouts the exact same thing in fewer secularized descriptions with the explanation being : "oh well uh, this is theoretical but eventually we'll know".

Lol.

>>10287547
>The longer we look and measure shadows, the more they will become real
No, a "Shadow" is the absence of light. How do you plan on reifying an absence?

>Energy(without mass) will bend space time, but we already know this and have it in our models. You're just dumb.

Space has no properties. If so what property does space have that causes it to "bend".

>>10287551
>quantum
>darkmatter
>quantum foam
>strings
>virtual photons
>particles
>wave particle duality
Just to name a few. OP gets a pass since everyone here is relying on half-assed descriptions of things

>>10287360
They're too scared to call it "aether" because they already "disproved" it.

>>10286492
>dark matter
Now why wouldn't light just become regular matter?

>>10287601
>I guess general relativity being the most accurate model for gravity was just luck then. huh.
The cause of gravity has never been explained by any branch of science, so I don't know what you're trying to say here.

>>10035857
Constructive and destructive interference of light against itself.

>>10036493
>>10036493
>Take coaxial circuit that is light
>terminate its dielectric component
>coaxial circuit that is light is now just incoherent transverse loss
>wow guys when you eliminate a vital modality that makes EM a fucking coaxial circuit you no longer get that coaxial circuit
Wonder how that happened.

>This is only possible if light has only transverse modes and no longitudinal modes
Where the fuck do you thing the transverse waves came from?

>>10004387
>Stars on the other hand emit light. They produce actual photons, creating more light than there was before. This is High School level physics, m8.

Really? Because I'm gonna need proof that "stars emit light" because so far all we've gather from stars is that they act like electrical transformers. You know, transforming shit that was already there to begin with and making it coherent. That isn't "emission".
Somehow in your infected mind you believe that something is actually traveling through the vacuum of space when it is simply a difference of what is already there. Even in a vacuum sealed light-bulb, what the fuck do you think is "traveling" through solid glass?
>particuls and uh, well they turn into vibrations and excitation n' shiet... and then it turns into heat...somehow.
Cool now explain how the fuck they do it.

>>10004523

Oh much wow! Gifs prove that acceleration is a force! Let me dredge up one of my proof gifs here and just let you the talking. In the meantime I'm gonna go make an anti-gravity device with standing penguins and every one that falls over I'll club to death because they aren't producing enough "anti-gravity".

>>9976853
>gravity causes
>But still no cause to gravity

Gake and Fay