/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15886558
Post the juicier ones.

>>15504314
>This may sound retarded as fuck to a physicist
Not at all, have you heard how they defined light?

>is there a way to bend light in the same way we can bend electron beams with a magnetic field?
No "bend", no "wave", no "magnetism"...no light. You get nothing, you lose.

>>15504320
You really could not find one single paper about light: the electroMAGNETIC phenomena?

>>15504322
>>15504320
Typically things are defined in less than a paragraph, at least if you want to fit it into a dictionary. Yet still to this day you will find hundreds of thousands of papers, all of which tell you "lol we don't know how light works".

The problem is nobody goes looking for the answer when they think they already have it. "Light doesn't bend" you see, it only does that when you introduce an illogical dualism. Oh it also travels "in a vacuum" without negating said vacuum in the first place...yes somehow it does that. I'm sure you'll find that info in one of those aforementioned papers that doesn't explain how light works.

>>15465342
>What do you think happens then Einstein?
Tell us, smarty pants.

>>14713968
>Make an argument
Give me something to actually argue over and then we'll talk you fucking sophist.

>you recirculating defeated arguments over and over again like a weasel going in circles,
I have defeated nothing because no actual argument is there worth discussing. You may as well just start having flame wars over more interesting imaginary bullshit at this point, like your favorite show on TV or something. Then it would actually be interesting at least, but this? What straw are you trying to grasp at here?

>>14644339
>a field
>spacetime
Explain the difference.

>>14640361
>>14640372
>popular is good

>>14524819
> It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.