/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15477074
>well they're measuring mass by way of the effects of gravity.
Ah yes, more things they define this absence of evidence with.

>What other variable would account for a gravitational pull besides some kind of matter?
>Is there some other variable that can pull galaxies?
>was I even on the right track with my initial post? I wasn't looking for a mess of technicalities saying I'm wrong. Is my understanding relatively correct or am I way off base?

See the unsure nature of your inquiries? See how you still ask "What is this thing"? That is your "dark matter". You call it by name and yet it is a completely unknown. It's the equivalent of religion filling in the blank with an omnipotence. Tell me what "force" is it that makes water go down a drain?
>gravity
Which is not a force but a description of mass accelerating to mass. How does it do that? I could pressurize the line and then the water would drain nowhere, what "force" is pressure mediation itself?

>>15340581
>Yes, by 'The attractive force', I meant 'The gravitational force'.
...You can't even tell me that with confidence since you have no mode, no causal link to this force other than "mass" which is what a magnet also has. Describing a mass accelerating to another mass is never going to explain "how that happened".

>Yes, in the spherical mass the gravitational field is zero in the center,
So the source of gravity is "no gravity"? It makes no sense.

>but the external field generated is identical to the field generated by a point-mass with the same mass in the center of the sphere.
Explain how?

>>15340590
The same can be said of a neutron star and gravity. If it depends on the properties of the material...then that would be qualitative not quantitative.

>>15336628
>inb4 janny deletes

>>15336616
any claims that they "are caused" or actually exist, yet use nothing other than negation to define "it" should be laughed at. Observe the examples of the negation used by shadow chasers here:

>>15336644
>I wouldn't quite say
>Whether or not
>a lot of their predictions

Cool story bro. One more "not" and you could tie a rope and hang yourself from it.

>>15313415
>what happens to the energy when two (light) waves destructively interfere?
Physics chases a shadow and calls it "phenomenal".

>>15297876
>interpretation
No. "Interpolation"

>>15285165
>so you don't know how a magnet works, got it!
There is no start, end or "origin" to quantify in the first place when it comes to a magnetic field. What equation can you possibly derive from it without it being fallacious/resulting in the answer not being a "quantity". It's not that it works that way it does for (specific quantified reason), because again it has nothing to do with quantity.

>I will keep generating magnetic fields and accurately predicting their strengths
Which will never explain how magnets work.

>>15285174
>Waah where's your quote! Provide me something in CD/CM format so my book learned overly complex brain can process!

No wisdom.

>>15229261
>J-Just s-stop!
Yeah. Nah.

>>15194553
>Why not just fucking say the origin of magnetic fields is static dipoles?
You see that hole in the center? That's what you're calling a "source" even though there's nothing fucking there. This is what you want to call "something", and this is what extra ordinary retards divide into a dualism.

>>15194562
There is no empirical evidence of an electron particle.

>>15194585
>so you're saying no one else on the planet knows how magnets work?
Correct!

>>15181680
>Which makes more sense?
It's a description that basically means "mass accelerates to mass". How? We don't know lol.

>>15181711
>Descriptions on top of descriptions
Still doesn't explain the attraction/repulsion

>>15181740
A model derived by some deluded quack that proposes "Space" has properties to bend and warp.

>>15181751
>It's a quantitative property of matter.
A magnet and an unmagnetized chunk with the same quantity of material exhibits different qualities. Quantity cannot explain this phenomena.

>Matter is made of things. They're called subatomic particles
>atomism is atomism, how can you not understand this?
This is the most buck of bots being broken right here.

>>15164341
>because black holes require unification. basically they are so big that we dont understand them. we cant see them. like how a fly cant see you. it can see a piece of you, it knows something is there, but your body is incomprehensible to it.

Like a shadow. It exists as a lack of something else worth investigation.

>>15166112
That's a sure lot of "nothing" you use to define your alleged "thing".

>>15156967
>>15156978
>Magnetism is interesting, and the content Witsit has been putting out about it lately has me looking into a lot more these days:
[YouTube] Grounded (embed)

Rofl. Everything "new" this guy is saying is exactly what Ken Wheeler covered years ago in literally hundreds of 20 minute videos featuring no fancy ads or graphic designs

https://youtu.be/47T1_5P8jtg
https://youtu.be/5IwgRNS1Frs
Oh and the favorite new buzzword grifters have appropriated and misconstrued: "Dielectric/Dielectricity".
https://youtu.be/7guCx6eXrFc

>Spill the beans my guy.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe. I will tell you facts of the matter and one of them is that magnetism is not flat rofl. It's what props "physical" things into existence, as "3-dimensional" (really just "dimensional").

"flat" is not a shape its a description of a surface.
And you describe such a thing that doesn't exist. There are no "straight lines" or "flatness" anywhere in the universe. Demonstrably, not my opinion.

>>14994423
>As I understand it, the reason we can't determine the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously is similar to how we perceive a pencil wiggling.
Eye of a hurricane. You're looking at the center of a "particle" constantly moving... but there is nothing there. Very convenient when researching because you can call it a million different names but you can't even prove it's actually there.

>>14838921
>Absorption and emission is not movement.
So why do they say light travels and "has a speed" when it's not actually moving?

>It turns out light doesn't need a medium
>It turns out something travels in nothing
Impossible

>Quantum foam are fluctuations of spacetime in which matter and antimatter are constantly being created (so-called virtual particles).
This sounds like a massive rephrasing/rewording of "aether".

>They really have nothing to do with each other.
"Trust me bro"

>space is a dimension of the spacetime manifold, which contains plenty of matter.
"matter" being "the only stuff measurable and used to reify space as something that does something".

>>14839308
>space is that thing that separates events which occur at the same time.
>You know..the thing!

And it separates these "events" how?

>>14707003
>Hypothetically if I could create a vacuum in space with invisible magic transparent chambers,

>>12525761
>Ok schizo, you can "digitally alter" i.e blur your monitor screen, doesn't mean what you are seing is not there.
It also doesn't prove "what it is" that's there. Other than a blurred fucking image anyway. So I guess you did prove something. That a blurred orange circle exist. What does that have to do with a black hole?

>This is a philosophical question,
No, it's a scientific one. I am asking for empirical evidence of your claims. You are not providing it, so fuck off.

>the task of physics is not to say how nature is, but about what we can say about nature.
Oh well I'm talking about science here.

>There are experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicors,
AND WHERE IS THE EXPERIMENT FOR "GRAVITY" YOU STUPID FUCK? You're deriding because you're bereft of an answer, just as space and time are bereft of properties that allow it to do the ass backwards shit GR claims it can.

>you are just throwing False equivalence out of your ass here.
If it actually classifies as a false equivalency it's because a unicorn and gravity have as much proof of existing as the other in that they don't exist. You're somewhat right in this instance, I can't really equate two things that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST. That's why I also asked for proof first and not your re-descriptions.

>>10548919
This guy made videos years ago saying it was bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hzvvjh3_8g

billions of dollars vs a fucking magnet and two pieces of glass. Who will win?