/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10080083

We already have, you fucking idiot.

>>10080083
We already have hydroelectric.

>>10080083

>>10080083
If you mean gravitational waves, yes. It is possible.

>>10080083
Yeah, do you even lift bro?

>>10080086
>>10080092
>>10080094
>>10080102

Haha so funny take it literally and ignore the context of the question epic meme my fellow redditors XD

>>10080445
what exactly is the context of the question?

>>10080445
Explain to me how a water wheel isn't harnessing gravitys power. Either refine your question or stop being an autist.

>>10080445
These are valid answers. They use gravitational potential energy. So do paperweights ;^)

>>10080445
Just because it doesn’t look sci fi doesn’t mean it isn’t harnessing gravity

>>10080083
>>10080445
Alright lets examine the context of the question

>will we ever harness the force of gravity

>force of gravity

An acceleration is not a "Force". "Gravity" in the context of this question is an assumption that "gravity" is something to begin with despite no actual empirical evidence of such. How does one "harness" what isn't "harnessable"? How does one harness an acceleration? If you can't answer these two questions then the original question is completely non-sequitur.

I guess balloons use it to fly

>>10080458
>"Gravity" in the context of this question is an assumption that "gravity" is something to begin with despite no actual empirical evidence of such.
>"gravity" is something to begin with despite no actual empirical evidence of such
>no actual empirical evidence
have you noticed that you haven't flown off the face of the planet today, anon?

>>10080458
gravity is definitely a force, anon. that force HAS a specific acceleration, but it's still a force

>>10080561
In B4 no gravity but the flat earth is accelerating upwards.

>>10080564
even if the flat earth were accelerating upwards, that acceleration of the earth would still result in a force being applied

>>10080561
it's a different kind of force than all others
https://youtu.be/iu7LDGhSi1A?t=7m

>>10080458
Classical mechanics defines gravity as a force that is proportional to the mass of a body.

>>10080083
i think you need to clarify the question better but i am assume your asking will we be able to manipulate like we do magnetism and electricity.

We dont know. we dont know how to even produce a tiny fraction of it short of increasing the mass of an object and we dont know we can repell it or negate it.
Its possible the answer is right infront of our faces but we simply dont know.

the inventing of a device that negates/manipulates gravity would be one of the single greatest invention in all of humanity.

My theory is that its possible
if there anything that humans have envisioned that is not possible. space travel,tablets, hand held mobile phones,androids before the technology was even possible

>>10080452
Is that a baboon

>>10080458
>An acceleration is not a "Force"

>>10080083
gravity batteries are a thing in terms of energy storage and technology so i don't see why not

>>10080626
You haven't taken the bog pill? Psh, literal rebbiter

>>10080083
Read for a while....

We had a "substance" with center on gravity being on long part on lever while it gets down and short part of lever while it gets up.

Properly done can yield a power to sustain household whiting a household.

Isn't it enough?

>>10080622
Gravity negate gravity, if you use same amount of weight over the red arrow, is hugely negated.

>>10080458
Acceleration means there is potential energy beside the acceleration.

>>10080847
Oh, I remember this.

>>10081017
momentum is weird man

>>10081379
What does that have to do with momentum

>>10081379
Probably means torque, which in some languages is essentially called "momentum of rotation". They use the word impulse instead of momentum when they mean m*v.

>>10081017
Taking pic of balanced hammer with balanced hammer on a screen should be challenge, not fucking ice-buckets.

>>10081425
Yes

What would happen if g suddenly became 9.90

We've already utilized gravity slings to accelerate spacecraft, if you meam creating artificial gravity in spacecraft or just ignoring it altogether, it's not likely. Abusing one of the four fundamental forces of the universe is unfathomably difficult.

>>10080083

>>10082176
wouldn't notice anything changed
gravity at the equator is 9.832 and 9.78 at the poles

nothing catastrophic would happen, but it would make headlines for a few years for spiking suddenly

>>10082176
So long as G doesn't change, nothing really matters.

>>10080559
>>10080561
>>10080600
>>10080666
>>10080891

>Center of planet/mass
>no gravity
>at the center of gravity there is no gravity
>from nothing this magical "force" spawns and keeps you attracted to its nothingness
>???

>>10082351
yes at the center of mass you have enough particles all around you to where each point is pulling you in every direction with an equal force
they all cancel out

>>10082351
So you based your argument on a flawed assumption.

>>10082358
>Gravity cancels itself
>also explains itself
>>10082469
Quite the opposite. You're all assuming Gravity is a force despite no empirical evidence of such.

>>10080083
Hmmmm.....

>>10080445
Say what you mean then.

>>10082489
>>Gravity cancels itself
What.

Imagine that there is a hollow cavity at the center of the Earth for no reason.
On the outside of the Earth you are pulled towards the center of the Earth because it is the center of the mass.
In the center of the cavity at the center of the Earth, all the mass is around you.
Thus, if that mass were to be evenly distributed, you would be pulled equally in all directions, because the center of mass is effectively a sphere around you.
It's not that there is no gravity. You are stupid.

>You're all assuming Gravity is a force despite no empirical evidence of such.
Acceleration is not spontaneous. Some work needs to be done to cause the acceleration. Some force could impart the work to cause the acceleration.
That force is gravity. And we have measured the strength of it.

>>10082604
>Thus, if that mass were to be evenly distributed, you would be pulled equally in all directions, because the center of mass is effectively a sphere around you.

>gravity pulls towards center of mass
>except for when mass reaches the center point of total mass and is exerted in every direction.
>gravity is now a dynamo

>That force is gravity. And we have measured the strength of it.
When and where? Are you measuring a "force" or an acceleration the cause of which has never been explained?

>>10082669
>>except for when mass reaches the center point of total mass and is exerted in every direction.
I see where your confusion is coming from. You think that gravity is magically created at the center of a large mass body and pulls everything towards it.
No. It's just that a line intersecting the center of a large mass body (usually spherical) has the most matter/mass and so the pull of gravity is the strongest in that direction.

>>10082795
>I see where your confusion is coming from. You think that gravity is magically created at the center of a large mass body and pulls everything towards it.

That's not what I said, that is what most of these posters are saying. I still don't believe gravity is a thing. As far as I'm concerned most people here believe that gravity is magically created for no reason because I have yet to find someone willing to explain where it comes from. "From mass" how? How does mass "attract" and conglomerate together? How is that any different than magnetism?


>No. It's just that a line intersecting the center of a large mass body (usually spherical) has the most matter/mass and so the pull of gravity is the strongest in that direction.
Why?w

>>10083198
>How does mass "attract" and conglomerate together?
Gravity.
>How is that any different than magnetism?
It works between masses that aren't magnetically attracted to each other.
>Why?
Because one you realize that mass has gravity it is the logical progression.

>>10083198
Gravity is just electromagnetic attraction but proportional to mass instead of charge. And weaker.

>>10083304
Therefore not electromagnetic.

>>10080445
Worst post on this board atm

>>10083304
>Gravity
>electromagnetic

>>10082489
I mean that stupid shit that you measure newtons by which object is pulled towards planet is quite empirical evidence.

>>10082351
There is mathematically 0 chance for particle to be at center of gravity.

>>10083310
Of course gravity isn't literally electromagnetic you brainlet, but it IS mechanically identical at arbitrary scales. Asking why mass attracts mass is like asking why charge attracts -charge.
>>10083315
Read and try again.

>>10082358
Well, that's not exactly how pressure works.

>>10083319
Well, potatoes are just like corn, expect then do not corn but potate.

Sounds like logic.

>>10083319
Yeah dude, Coulomb' Law has the same mathematical structure of Newton's Law of Gravity. That's literally it. Doesn't make them physically the same, moron.
I guess fluid mechanics is the same as electrodynamics because all the equations are the same huh

>>10083330
Nobody is talkig about pressure

>>10083344
Who the fuck cares if you'de be pulled inside out if there's a pressure?

>>10083356
I don't even know what you're talking about and you probably don't either

>>10083281
>Gravity.
Yeah, the magical "force" that eludes circular reasoning...for some reason.

>It works between masses that aren't magnetically attracted to each other.
yeah...and how does it do this?

>Because one you realize that mass has gravity it is the logical progression.
Non sequitur

>>10083304
So far the best explanation here for gravity.

>>10083316
WHAT CAUSES THE FUCKING "PULL", DIPSHIT? DO THE 'NEWTONS" GET TOGETHER AND START TUGGING ON THE MASS LIKE A FUCKING ROPE?

>>10083317
What I said. "At the center of gravity there is no gravity", the so called "gravity" being caused by mass...of which there is none. So to say gravity is a "force" that is "pulling us down", is nowhere near a proper description let alone an explanation to where "gravity" comes from. The "force" has no origin and is completely dependent on the medium (mass present). That's not a "force" that's a pressure mediation of mass.

>>10083375
Holy fuck, open a textbook you retard

>>10083407
Yeah, and none of them explain what causes it. They describe the effect dubbed as "gravity", but none explain what causes the phenomena. The most you get is "well, uh spinning "mass" n shieeet" and other mathematical descriptions of what it does. What is fucking "pulling"?

>>10083436
Spacetime is sensative to mass in a way we still dont understand fully, it becomes curved in its presence. We can detect this curvature using the distant light that passes by galaxies and is distorted by this curved spacetime.

>>10083445
>Spacetime is sensative to mass in a way we still dont understand fully, it becomes curved in its presence.

Space=filled space
Time= a measurement

The rest of this incoherent babble= not applicable to reality

>We can detect this curvature using the distant light that passes by galaxies and is distorted by this curved spacetime.

You detect it using light? Light is EM so it makes sense that you are detecting an electromagnetic phenomena with another electromagnetic phenomena. This just further proves that gravity is electromagnetic in nature.

>>10083465
>i can measure my foot using a wooden ruler, therefore my foot is made of wooden material
simply retarded

>>10083436
>Yeah, and none of them explain what causes it.
Good thing that's the point of physical science.

>>10083465
>You detect it using light
no, you detect it by literally observing it causes masses to accelerate to another you fucking retard

>>10083476
No. I'm floating right now

>>10083480
no you aren't, don't respond to this

>>10083469
I know right?

I can "measure the time" therefore "time" exists and is a phenomena that does something!
I can "measure the waves" therefore "waves" exists and is a phenomena that does something! (Even though a wave is what something else does)
I can "measure the gravity" therefore "gravity exists and is a phenomena that does something!
I can measure "space" therefore "space" exists and is a phenomena that does something!

Even though absolutely none of these things have attributes or properties, they are somehow believed to be things that have a basis in reality due to...a psychosis more or less.

>>10083471
What is "physical" about gravity?

>>10083508
Why aren't you floating right now, Anon?

>>10080445
learn how to phrase a question properly then

>>10083512
floating in what?

>>10083522
the universe

>>10083531
I am part of the universe, yes. It is mediating me, yes. That is not the conventional meaning of "floating". I am "emanating" in it.

>>10083542
>I am "emanating
Maybe take a shower or sth

>>10083508
>What is "physical" about gravity?
i observe its existence all the time, every day. i lift a glass marble, and drop it to my desk. It accelerated to my desk. That's what I refer to when I say gravity.

>>10080626
just leave and don't come back

pop science was a mistake

>>10083375
Just the fact that you used down means your perception is affected.

No magical newtons, fucking space contracting and expanding non uniformly due to matter presen't. Force is way of measure dumbfuck.

Pressure is defined as force per space, you're utter retard.

>>10083465
So you deduce we think photons of light are moved by wifi, you're fucking funny.

>>10083508
There is no reality you can touch, just perception, and space time waves and gravity has perceived properties.

>>10083671
Never used "down", psychosis man.

>fucking space contracting and expanding non uniformly due to matter presen't.
Name a property of "space". What is contracting and expanding?

>Force is way of measure dumbfuck.
Doesn't mean it exists.

>>10083684
>So you deduce we think photons of light are moved by wifi, you're fucking funny.
>photons
You just keep on throwing those terms out that mean absolutely nothing.

>There is no reality you can touch, just perception, and space time waves and gravity has perceived properties.
Sounds like metaphysical religious mumbo-jumbo. No thanks .

>>10083375
>>10083739
>Never used "down", psychosis man
>So to say gravity is a "force" that is "pulling us down"

Respond to >>10083608 or go back to /x/

>>10083751
Don't reply the the schizos

>>10080458
>If a force causes acceleration it is not a force
ok

>>10080083
of course OP it is how I place my dick on your moms face

>>10083436
>>10083465
Congratulations, you've realized that there are things we can't completely explain yet.
Why be such a bitch about it, though?
We can differentiate it from magnetic and electromagnetic causes, though, so stop with that bullshit.

>>10083751
I'm quoting what others usually have to say about gravity, don't go putting words in my mouth. "Down" doesn't exist and gravity has no Cartesian origin for to say it exists. So unless you would like to tel me what the fucking source of gravity is

>Respond to >>10083608 or go back to /x/
>i observe its existence all the time, every day. i lift a glass marble, and drop it to my desk. It accelerated to my desk. That's what I refer to when I say gravity.
the marble desk and earth are "physical" in that they are made of these little dynamos called "atoms". Now explain to me what is PHYSICALLY happening when the marble accelerates towards the desk. "It accelerates" is a description of what it does, not WHY it does it. You can say the "why" is because of "gravity" all you like, that doesn't explain shit. All you're doing is transferring the burden of proof on a term/theory that has also never been explained.
TL;DR:
Stop describing what you see and start explaining what it is you're seeing. "I see gravity" is not an answer.

>>10083803
What causes the acceleration dubbed as "gravity"? You can say "mass" like the rest of the parrots, but that doesn't explain it away. What about "mass" causes the fucking attraction?

>>10084207
>Congratulations, you've realized that there are things we can't completely explain yet.
>Why be such a bitch about it, though?
Because it's one thing to say "I don't know how things are held down to the planet", and a completely different thing to make shit up as you go along. Don't pretend to know.

>We can differentiate it from magnetic and electromagnetic causes, though, so stop with that bullshit.
So let me get this straight.
>you state you cannot explain what it is
>yet somehow you can differentiate it.

A fucking psychosis.

>>10084297
>Because it's one thing to say "I don't know how things are held down to the planet", and a completely different thing to make shit up as you go along. Don't pretend to know.
We know it is gravity, though. We just don't know the mechanism that creates gravity exactly.

>you state you cannot explain what it is
>yet somehow you can differentiate it.
Yeah, because you can rule out things..

>>10084301
>We know it is gravity, though. We just don't know the mechanism that creates gravity exactly.

>Because it's one thing to say "I don't know how things are held down to the planet", and a completely different thing to make shit up as you go along. Don't pretend to know.

>Yeah, because you can rule out things..
What do you "rule out" when you don't know what it is you're trying to find to begin with?

>>10083333
>>10083337
If it smells like red paint but looks like blue paint, you can be reasonably certain it's still fucking paint.

I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about gravity in here.
Electric attraction happens because electrical charge has an effect on the electromagnetic field, which in turn has an effect on charged particles.
Gravity happens because mass has an effect on space, which in turn has an effect on massive particles.

>>10084313
>What do you "rule out" when you don't know what it is you're trying to find to begin with?
Well, we can compare gravity to electromagetic waves and see that electromagnetic waves are affected by gravity and electromagnetism doesn't follow the inverse square law like gravity does.
So clearly gravity can't be explained by electromagnetism.

Magnetism follows the inverse square law, but gravity works between objects (and particles) that don't magnetically attract, so it can't be explained by magnetism.

So you see, we can compare the effects of gravity to things we do understand and thus rule out the possibility of those things explaining it.
I suppose you could always fire back with "well how do we know we understand electromagnetism and magnetism fully" but that hurts your argument for those being the explanation just as much.

why do you even bother replying to this shit
im disappointed /sci/

>>10080452
what the fuck has he done to his face??

>>10084362
>Magnetism follows the inverse square law, but gravity works between objects (and particles) that don't magnetically attract, so it can't be explained by magnetism.

Name one thing not influenced by magnetism. What do you think a particle accelerator is made of?

>I suppose you could always fire back with "well how do we know we understand electromagnetism and magnetism fully" but that hurts your argument for those being the explanation just as much.

Not really, the explanation for magnetism basically comes down to a half assed description of what it does. That's the only reason I compared gravity and electromagnetism, no explanations.

>>10084358
>Electric attraction happens because electrical charge has an effect on the electromagnetic field, which in turn has an effect on charged particles.
Descriptions describing descriptions. What a story Mark.

Gravity happens because mass has an effect on space, which in turn has an effect on massive particles.
>mass has an effect on space
And what is a property of this "space"?

anyone who will respond to him after this post is officially brainlet and dont belong on this high IQ board

Is this guy trying to guide the conversation to like an electric universe or plasma universe or something?

>>10084420
>Name one thing not influenced by magnetism.
Uncharged particles, like neutrons.

>>10084421
>>10084424

>>10084449
And what happens to isolated neutrons?

>>10084458
They decay into a proton and electron usually.

>>10080083
>will we ever harness the force of gravity?

hahahaha, puny humans... no you won't.

>>10080083
You cant utilize something when you don't know why that something does what it does.

>>10080559
Oy vey don't you know the Bible is right and you are denser than the either in the atmosphere

>>10082489
So we know that we don't fly of the earth and it correlates with mass and density. Now this phenomenon is refered to as gravity. So gravity exist. How it exist or the cause of this phenomenon called gravity is unknown. Under this definition we can say gravity is empirically is proven. Now if gravity is a theory of what the cause is then you can say there is no evidence but it doesn't make that claim.

>>10083375
Quantum locking

>>10080083
The real problem is figuring out the cause. The problem is every thing that looks like it will pin down the cause disproves Einstein so good luck with destroying the cult of Einstein.

>>10084725
>You cant utilize something when you don't know why that something does what it does.
This is pure bullshit if I have ever heard it.
You think the first humans who utilized fire knew why fire did what it did?
Not a fucking chance.

>>10084745
>The problem is every thing that looks like it will pin down the cause disproves Einstein
Examples, please.

>>10084725
How did you make that post?

>>10081490
wow where is that?

is this real?

looks like a dmt trip

>>10084725
That's not even remotely true. In fact, knowing how something works is completely secondary to using it.

>>10083337
they are similar

>>10084337
Wtf are you even trying to say
Gravitational forces are completely separate from electric ones.

>>10084957
you just said it yourself, both are forces, so they both behave like a force.

now how do forces behave?

>>10084981
They make stuff accelerate. Electric and gravitational forces are both equally forces. But there isnt any reason to think they have the same origin, at least from your naive perspective.

>>10080445
>asks a dumb non-specific question
>gets real answers
>somehow it's our fault your question is dumb

>>10084420
What the fuck does descriptions describing descriptions even mean you fucking retard
If you're trying to say it's circular reasoning, it's not, you're just being intentionally obtuse. You being too stupid to comprehend field theory and basic level particles physics doesn't make the universe behave however you want. There are still mysteries in the workings of gravity and of electromagnetism, but those mysteries are at a level of understanding deeper than any of your confusions. You don't get to just claim things aren't known simply because you do not know them.

And what do you mean what is a property of space? The three dimensional space which we live in gets pulled and warped by mass and energy. Like a bowling ball placed on a stretched out bedsheet.
Gravity is a result of this warping of space.

>>10084957
I'm trying to say it's ridiculous to get confused about why masses attract but be totally fine with the arbitrary assumptions required to not be confused about electromagnetic attraction because on a certain level they're completely analogous systems.
My mistake was assuming the chucklefuck I was originally replying to can even comprehend the idea of a fundamental force.

Property of space can mean it happens in space, that's enough of a property...

Maybe it's just that mass is resistance to movement, therefore spaces has more obstacles breathing there, therefore it moves in direction towards a center of what is this obstacle to move concentrated like a worm.

There's this stuff, that as space expands on one side of object and contracts on other side it moves like worm, therefore gravity doesn't affect on small scale that much, because it's not big enough in way this worm movement would have effect on that.

This thing called mass causes that things are pulled together, because it means that vibration of space is not uniform, causing the thing, that there's more contraction where there is mass, maybe it has stuff to do with time, because where is mass, there is just a little bit more time to spend. So the contraction happens slower, as any wave can be constructed by adding sines together, this create effect of asymmetrical contraction and expansion wave, where there is more contraction on one side than another.

More contraction of space means everything is more dense and sticking together tightly, therefore light travels less distance in distant time, because it goes trough same number of stuff it goes trough, but it's more dense.

Stuff is denser and therefore there is less distance which space contracts at, but it is still contracting in one way.

TL;DR: Time is property of matter. More matter, more time. Super dense matter: crystallized time.

More matter, more energy required to change it's potential energy, super dense stuff so for stuff actually doing stuff, there is more exposure to change, which rate is limited by time and distance which both actually change with concentrating matter on a smaller space non lineary....


....

Sorry for my autism,...

Also somebody could explain to me where Newtonian gravity has Newtonian reaction to action, also why you celebrate such thing ...

>>10085163
This concept of matter is similar to viscosity.

>>10085163
Matter has decay and has a survival reflex to bend time so it decay's for long. Where's your god now?

>>10085125
>What the fuck does descriptions describing descriptions even mean you fucking retard.

>Electric attraction happens because electrical charge has an effect on the electromagnetic field which in turn has an effect on charged particles.

Yeah, you sat back and DESCRIBED the effects of "electric attraction" with another description "charged particles". You never explained what causes it, you simply described it with "which in turn has an effect on charged particles". Well what the fuck does it mean to have "electric charge" and furthermore "electromagnetic field" is also a description, of a "field" specifically being described as "electromagnetic". What causes a "field"?

>And what do you mean what is a property of space? The three dimensional space which we live in gets pulled and warped by mass and energy. Like a bowling ball placed on a stretched out bedsheet.
>the bedsheet meme with no basis in reality

Okay if "space" has the properties of a fucking blanket, sure. Otherwise I'm gonna need a property that space has in order for it to do this "curving" that you seem to think it does. What is curving? "Space" is not an answer. What is "space"?
See this is the problem. It is FILLED SPACE. If you want to talk about a property that space has then unfortunately you'll find yourself taking about the stuff that fucking fills it to begin with, "Space" has no fucking properties.

>>10085163

>Property of space can mean it happens in space, that's enough of a property..

>happens in
>something that has no properties itself
>somehow?

It''s "filled space", get it through your head. "Nothing" has no properties.

>>10084737
>So with word play and ignoring burden of proof we can pretend something exists even if it doesn't.
We all knew this anon. This works right up until someone starts pushing you into the holes your dug for yourself.

>>10085205
>pushing you into the holes
Well, nothing would happen because gravity doesn't exist. Checkmate

>>10085205
You are fucking retarded

Just because we don't know how exactly something work doesn't mean we can't have theory describing it. We can easily observe that mass attracts mass and we decided to call this effect gravity and written down laws describing how exactly this effect work. We don't know why universe work like this and maybe we will never know it but this doesn't disprove gravity. In physics we formulate theories which are defined as
>A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

So in other words its perfectly normal to create theory solely on observations or experiments, what more any kind of explanation isn't needed.
This is different Math to where you have theorems which are derived as logical consequence of axioms. Theorems are constructed from "bottom to top", starting from simplest which explain more complex so you can always answer your favorite question "Why?". However physical theories are usually made the other way - "top to bottom" where you start from describing simple well know effect or phenomena (for example gravity) and later you can explain how this effect work by unraveling more complex phenomena (in our case curvature of space-time). So as I said in the beginning we can't explain why can space bend itself but this doesn't mean that it's not valid theory. In physics you can't just keep asking "Why?" every time you get more complex answer because there are no "physical axioms" (or at least we don't know them so far) from which is everything derived.

>>10085272
>Just because we don't know how exactly something work doesn't mean we can't have theory describing it.
sorry meant
Just because we don't know why something work as it work doesn't mean we can't have theory describing it.

>>10085205
When I start talking about properties of luminescence ether everybody seems to hide and nobody want to talk with me.

Also space is not nothing but set of coordinates.

Space is not actually bend, bended is a function of it.

>>10085272
>>10085279
Wonderful, now I can prove the existence of unicorns! As long as I describe said unicorn to have a horn and wings like a heron, it will certainly pop into existence and become part of reality.
>>10085280
>When I start talking about properties of luminescence ether everybody seems to hide and nobody want to talk with me.
Probably because they believe light is "emitted", "travels", is a "wave" or a "particle". Oh well, this is what happens when you believe descriptions are things.

>>10085645
>Wonderful, now I can prove the existence of unicorns! As long as I describe said unicorn to have a horn and wings like a heron, it will certainly pop into existence and become part of reality.
Cool, now try to actually respond to anything in my post

>>10085645
Asking why the world is the way that it is isn't science.
Science can't answer why things are, it can only tell you how things are.

Just because we don't know the primeval purpose behind the universe doesn't mean we can't describe how it works in great detail. You ask how masses attract? They attract proportionally to their magnitude and inversely proportional to the distance between them. If you want a deeper answer, they attract because, in our universe, objects with mass literally pull on the fabric of the space that they're contained in. Any answer less mathematical than that or seeking to explain a deeper "why" is in the realm of philosophy, not science.

>>10085205
>If you want to talk about a property that space has then unfortunately you'll find yourself taking about the stuff that fucking fills it to begin with, "Space" has no fucking properties.
Malleablity. That's a property space has.
Space also cannot be infinitely divided. The minimum distance is the Planck length. That's another property.
There's also a maximum speed that causal events can move through space, known as c or the speed of light (which isn't really about light, just that light travels at c). That's also a property of space.

>Yeah, you sat back and DESCRIBED the effects of "electric attraction" with another description "charged particles". You never explained what causes it, you simply described it with "which in turn has an effect on charged particles".
These are all pretty much irrelevant to your original claims, especially about gravity.
It's enough we can differentiate these effect from the effect of gravity without having to explain the inner workings of both.

>>10080083
Gravity isn't a real elementary force
Has to do with EM fields from earth's rotating core probably
This is why it can't be unified with the other forces
Read about antigrav tech that the Nazis developed. They used counter rotating vortexes of liquid mercury

>>10086089
>Malleablity. That's a property space has.
Really? Are you sure it isn't the stuff filling "space" that is malleable? It's nothing other than a different pressure.

>The minimum distance is the Planck length. That's another property.
A measurement is not a property. 0/10

>There's also a maximum speed that causal events can move through space, known as c or the speed of light (which isn't really about light, just that light travels at c). That's also a property of space.
>other things moving through medium is a property of that medium
>a rate of induction is a "speed"
0/10.

>It's enough we can differentiate these effect from the effect of gravity without having to explain the inner workings of both.
Non sequitur 0/10.

>>10080083
Shit, I thought he was asking about the snake.

>>10083407
Please be slightly less easy to troll.

This goes for a lot of you.

>>10083543
I don't care who you are, that's funny.

>>10086461
>Are you sure it isn't the stuff filling "space" that is malleable?
Yes.

>A measurement is not a property.
It's not a measurement, it's a limit.

>other things moving through medium is a property of that medium
The limit to the speed things can move through a "medium" is a property of that "medium".

>Non sequitur
It's off the topic of gravity being a force. Just a distraction.

>>10086089
>>10086480
You're pretty on point but while the Planck length is the smallest measurable distance and very likely the smallest meaningful distance, it's not necessarily the grid size of spacetime.
Space could potentially be infinitely divisible, it's just that anything smaller than the planck length is beyond physical relevance.
>>10086461
Yes, space is malleable. It can be warped and twisted and moved.
Another property being that space is intrinsically tied with time. Moving through space affects how you move through time and vice versa.
You keep talking about "filled space" as if those words mean anything unless you define them.

>>10086480
>Yes.
What is malleable about "nothing"? If there is nothing to manipulate then there is no "malleable".

>It's not a measurement, it's a limit.
...To something that measures after an event occurs. A measurement is not a property.

>The limit to the speed things can move through a "medium" is a property of that "medium".
It's not dependent on the medium, it's dependent on the rate at which it can displace it. Displacement is not a speed.

>>10086502
>You keep talking about "filled space" as if those words mean anything unless you define them.
Because no one has named a property of space yet. It's nothing other than a different pressure mediation..."filled space". Time is a measurement and I still do not understand why people use it to reify something that has no properties.
You are insisting something that has no properties to define something else that has no properties. You people are insane.

>>10080666
frame of reference, satan

>>10086669
In which frame of reference is an acceleration not (due to) a force?

>>10080445
holy shit where did you come from

>>10086513
>It's nothing other than a different pressure mediation..."filled space".
Except not. Your claims suggest objects in space must be displacing something, with zero evidence. This isn't the case.
Objects don't interact directly with space itself. Whatever makes up space and "fills" it, fills the objects in space just as readily.

There is no difference in "pressures". Space is not "displaced". Even if it were, it would still be a property of space, so you're still in trouble.

>Time is a measurement
We can measure time, so it must be more than a measurement. Everything exists, therefore time must exist. Try to understand that.

>>10086513
Time isn't a measurement. Time is a analogous to a direction. It's measured in seconds instead of meters, and you cannot "feel" your temporal velocity, but it can be observed and measured.
Moving faster through space makes you move slower through time.

>>10086838
>Except not. Your claims suggest objects in space must be displacing something, with zero evidence. This isn't the case.
Well it's...cute that you think that, but space is full of EM, hydrogen and other things in motion. If you think Space is an empty void of absolutely nothing then I feel sorry for you because nothing could be further from the truth
>Objects don't interact directly with space itself. Whatever makes up space and "fills" it, fills the objects in space just as readily.
Yeah it condensates, only the "drop" is a planet, sun or "body of matter".

>There is no difference in "pressures". Space is not "displaced". Even if it were, it would still be a property of space, so you're still in trouble.

You cannot displace nothing/an empty void of no reification, this is I say that "space has no properties". So you think the sun the earth and all the bodies are not displacements? Why the fuck do you think we whirl around the sun if there was no pressure mediation guiding us? You can call that "gravity" if you so choose, the point is that the mediation is different depending on how close you are to the mediation. You know like water going down a bathtub drain, or flowing downhill?

>We can measure time, so it must be more than a measurement
Again what is this "time" you are measuring? Where is the phenomena you are measuring? What is a property of it? There is none. You are MEASURING "frequency" OF SOMETHING ELSE that is "real" and expressing it as a MEASUREMENT of "time" Doesn't make "time" exist.

>Everything exists, therefore time must exist. Try to understand that.
And we'll invent measurements to say that if something is "measured" then it "exists", even if the measurement itself is not an actual thing.
>>10087399
Time isn't a measurement. Time is a analogous to a direction.
No properties, no attributes, not a phenomena, force nor modality. No reification. Time does not exist.

>>10087588

>>10087595
Keep deflecting brainlet. Not my fault you were bamboozled by pop-sci into believing that time and space were things of themselves by themselves. It's filled space and a frequency of something else doing something.

>>10087615

>>10080847
Thats just any equal force in the opposite direction. You could use a thruster pointed down

>>10086460
>Has to do with EM fields from earth's rotating core probably
no. absolutely not. gravity acts independant from electromagnetism

>They used counter rotating vortexes of liquid mercury
which didnt work

>>10086513
>please explain it to me like im a complete retard
why do i keep coming here

>>10087615
>It's filled space and a frequency of something else doing something.
oh yeah. congratulations professor. you just completely BTFO'd modern cosmology. im still baffled by this genius statement

>>10087700
>space is malleable. It can be warped twisted and moved
>Another property being that space is intrinsically tied with time

These are the bullshit reasons I'm assuming you conjured up. What is the "space" you refer of that is being twisted. As I already stated, there is no such thing as an empty void of nothing. Give me the Denotation of "space".
I dare you. I fucking dare you. Define "space" without using the actual stuff that that we know makes up the pressure mediation above our atmosphere(fields, EM, not "nothing").
I also already explained to you and everyone here that "Time" is a fucking measurement.
It has no properties and no attributes. Do you understand that? You are speaking about "time" as something of quantitative value, something that can be traversed and traveled through or something that can be "measured" even though fucking "time" is a measurement itself. That is patently absurd you torpid lotus-eater. Stop stating this obvious lie. You are traveling and being impeded by a medium already present, a medium that is not fucking "time" (or space).

>please explain it to me like im a complete retard.
Quite the contrary. I actually feel like I'm talking to a complete retard, one who thinks everything runs off "math" and "numbers". That the universe (something) actually understands time and space (imaginary, not real, concepts). I don't know how much more I can dumb this down for you. This is as dumbed down as it gets. Time is a measurement you stupid motherfucker and space is a human reified concept of nothingness, which does not exist and cannot exist by definition. How do you measure "nothing"? (You) are there in "nothing" to begin with, measuring it.

>>10087747
If I'm completely submerged in water I can still measure the water.

>>10087747
>space is a human reified concept of nothingness
no. space is not nothingness

>>10087747
nice randumb picture xDD

>>10087758
>If I'm completely submerged in water I can still measure the water.
Right you're in water, not "measured water". Measuring something doesn't make it exist, it aids in proving that it exists.

>>10087761
The what the fuck is "space"? Define it. Like I said, it's "filled space".

>>10087763
I don't even know what this is.

>>10087615
>It's filled space and a frequency of something else doing something

>>10087771
"Space is the boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events have relative position and direction.[1] Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime."

>>10087891
No dude, it a frequency of something else doing something and shit

>>10087891
"Space is a measurement" is what that amounts to. Measurements aren't things so yeah, my point still stands.

>Physical space is often conceived in three linear dimensions, although modern physicists usually consider it, with time, to be part of a boundless four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime.

Again defining it with the measurement that is time. There is nothing "physical" about that. Stop parroting bullshit. Combining "space" and "time" together doesn't make either of real.

>>10087783
>>10087922
>the peanut gallery NPC attempting to fit in. It's not working

>>10087935

>>10087935
>Measurements aren't things so yeah
Wtf am i reading. Measurements are indeed "things"

>>10087971
>Measurements are indeed "things"
Round we go again!. Name a property and an attribute of a measurement. They are completely arbitrary.
So I guess you can say they're "things", just "things" with as much basis in reality as unicorns.

>>10087935
>"Space is a measurement" is what that amounts to
no. space is not a measurement. you might confuse volume with space. or else i dont understand your confusion here. space is a thing. i mean it is pretty much everything

>>10087588
>Well it's...cute that you think that, but space is full of EM, hydrogen and other things in motion. If you think Space is an empty void of absolutely nothing then I feel sorry for you because nothing could be further from the truth
That's cute, you're thinking of Space as in outer space.

>You cannot displace nothing/an empty void of no reification, this is I say that "space has no properties".
It has no properties yet you can displace it? It must have a property then.

>Again what is this "time" you are measuring? Where is the phenomena you are measuring? What is a property of it?
We are measuring time. It is everywhere. It has a positive vector.

>And we'll invent measurements to say that if something is "measured" then it "exists", even if the measurement itself is not an actual thing.
You can invent a measurement, go ahead, but if what you are measuring doesn't exist then either you'll get a false result (measuring something else) or a zero result.

Also, Tesla's claim has not been backed up by any evidence since he made it.

>>10087615
Frequency is just a measurement.

>>10088388
>That's cute, you're thinking of Space as in outer space.
Non Sequitur, you still have not given a property of "inner space".

>It has no properties yet you can displace it? It must have a property then.
You're displacing the EM and matter you fuckwit. "Space" is still fucking "filled space". You can't point somewhere and go "There's space, of itself by itself!". No such thing. There is "less em and matter", but no absolute voidance of such.

>We are measuring time.
Y-You're measuring time? What are you measuring this "time" with? This phenomena that has no properties or attributes...what are you using to measure this non existent concept with?
>uhhh with time in seconds/picoseconds
>so you're measuring it with itself
Well sorry, things don't define themselves with circular reasoning. Try again.

"It has a positive vector", Well what the fuck is an attribute of a "positive vector"? What does that mean in reality where you and I live?

>You can invent a measurement, go ahead, but if what you are measuring doesn't exist then either you'll get a false result (measuring something else) or a zero result.

That is what I have repeatedly said the past 20+ posts about time and space you lint-headed clod. Do you know how to read?

>Also, Tesla's claim has not been backed up by any evidence since he made it.
There's nothing to be backed up the burden of proof lies on you retards to come up with a property of "Space", which no one has done other than with imaginary bullshit. Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Point to me a "space" that is manipulatable, there is none. In your own words.
"You can invent a measurement, go ahead, but if what you are measuring doesn't exist then either you'll get a false result"

>>10088410
No shit, the "something else doing something" isn't a measurement though.

>3 days later
>brainlets still trying to argue with obvious troll

>>10088597
>Non Sequitur
Incorrect, this is highly relevant.
What is in the area between electrons and the nucleus of atoms?

>You can't point somewhere and go "There's space, of itself by itself!". No such thing. There is "less em and matter", but no absolute voidance of such.
If there is less there must be something that takes up the rest of the volume. What is it?

>What are you measuring this "time" with?
>>uhhh with time in seconds/picoseconds
>>so you're measuring it with itself
Those are units, like centimeters.
I could choose to measure time with the oscillation of a quartz crystal. Why does the crystal oscillate at all?

>There's nothing to be backed up the burden of proof lies on you retards to come up with a property of "Space", which no one has done other than with imaginary bullshit.
It's nice of you to try pulling this card after making your claims as well.

>Point to me a "space" that is manipulatable, there is none.
We have measured our own star distorting space.
We have LIGO detecting the effects of gravitational waves on space.
We have measured how time is affected by proximity to gravitational bodies.

Feel free to prove all of these wrong. You'll get at least one Nobel Prize out of it.

>>10088625
hahaha whatever there is no gravity lmao, space is not real bcs i cant see it
nono sequorito
here is black and white anime pic to prove i btfowned you

>>10088597
>"something else doing something" isn't a measurement though
its a way of saying absolutely nothing tho

cant wait for this thread to die tbqh

>>10088603
>implying he isn't replying to himself.

>>10088644
I'm just going to assume you aren't the same person.

>>10081017
this is impossible

>>10088625
>What is in the area between electrons and the nucleus of atoms?
"Completely and utter nothingness! Or at least 99.whatever percent emptee spece. Totally nothing at all guys!"
Just kidding, it's magneto-dielectricity.

>If there is less there must be something that takes up the rest of the volume. What is it?
Unmanifested.

>I could choose to measure time with the oscillation of a quartz crystal. Why does the crystal oscillate at all?
Non-sequiter, you still are not measuring something. Like you said:
>You can invent a measurement, go ahead, but if what you are measuring doesn't exist then either you'll get a false result (measuring something else) or a zero result.
It oscillates because an atom is a dynamo of EM,

>It's nice of you to try pulling this card after making your claims as well.
Yeah, "space has no properties". How the fuck do I provide empirical evidence if it is not empirical in the first place? This is why the burden of proof lies on you, I'm not the one claiming imaginary things exist.

>We have measured our own star distorting space.
there it is again "distorting space". No it distorts the medium present.
We have LIGO detecting the effects of gravitational waves on space.
>yes we can't explain gravity, but we know that "gravitational waves" exist.
A "wave" is what something does by the way. It's also not a thing with a property, can't wait to hear the reply to that.
>We have measured how time is affected by proximity to gravitational bodies.
>We have measured how our arbitrary notion of magnitude is affected by other arbitrary notions of magnitude.
Yeah and mixing powdered koolaid in water affects the powdered koolaid. This is not news to anyone.


>>10088656

"Something" is not "nothing, last time I checked

>>10088644
>acting like a butthurt child on a science board.
Underage b& pls.

I think we can consider the idea that "/sci/ is not easily trolled" to be sufficiently refuted.

holy shit even the A/B portal and 0.999 threads are better than this paint stain

>>10082176
Units

>>10088724
>Just kidding, it's magneto-dielectricity.
You must have some extraordinary evidence to back this up. I'd love to see it.

>Non-sequiter, you still are not measuring something.
I must be measuring something. I can get consistent and predictable measurements, so something must be getting measured.

>It oscillates because an atom is a dynamo of EM,
But why would it oscillate as opposed to not oscillating?

>No it distorts the medium present.
Atoms and EM fields, you say, but even then, why are they distorted in the presence of a massive object?

>yes we can't explain gravity, but we know that "gravitational waves" exist.
Explaining something and knowing it exists are two separate issues. Something you seem unfamiliar with though you make claims you can't explain too.

>We have measured how our arbitrary notion of magnitude is affected by other arbitrary notions of magnitude.
We may have set them arbitrarily but we aren't changing them arbitrarily during the experiments, and you know this.

>>10080083
no because gravity isnt as simple as it seems. we can already negate gravity using magnetic fields but to create artifical gravity, increasing mass in a a controlled area with some magical technology box no and I say never.

Stuff like that is why I find the Mass Effect games so fun to play because they use it every where from weapons to FTL space flight.

>>10083436
this is a problem that lies behind all explanations it's not about gravity
it's the fact you can continue to ask "but why?" until you reach a dead end no matter where you begin

>>10080083
Gravity isn't a force though or did I miss another breakthrough?

>>10089247
>Gravity isn't a force though or did I miss another breakthrough?
You missed all of physics.

>>10089277
It's a curvature of spacetime not a force isn't it? We are falling along the curved path that is created in spacetime from the mass of the earth. There's no force pulling/pushing us into it.

Gravity is a current of massless "particles" that resembles a form of radiation produced by the kinetic energy stored in bodies of mass. The radiation pressure of the gravitational waves is what gives mass the property of inertia. The tendency for bodies to attract one another is a result of destructive interference of these waves.

>>10080083
Optimized.

>>10089292
It depends on your frame of reference.

>>10087615
>>10087711
>>10087783
he's saying it like an idiot but the point remains. like saying "time is a property/expression of matter and not a dimension"
I still think tachyons have more ground to stand on then "REEEEEEEEEE ITS JUST BEYOND HUMAN COMPREHENSION BRUH XXXDDDDDDDDDDD"

>>10089292
Jump of high enough building to prove us gravity is not a force.

Every action has its opposite reaction.

What is the opposite reaction of gravity taking effect of object? Such as object falling down in vacuum?

>>10089534
The object falling is also pulling on the object it is falling towards.

>>10089526
>"REEEEEEEEEE ITS JUST BEYOND HUMAN COMPREHENSION BRUH XXXDDDDDDDDDDD"
No one is saying this.

>>10089534
Both objects move to the combined center of gravity

>>10080452

>>10082669
>When and where? Are you measuring a "force" or an acceleration the cause of which has never been explained?
The two are essentially the same thing, because F = ma.
Anyway, forces cancel out, because they're vectors, the fact that gravity cancels out is actually support for the view of it as a force!

>>10089546
So both objects do "same" work?
Do you really believe what you said?

yes it's called electrogravidics, they just need to find the boson that connects the two forces.

>>10089560
Electronic gravdidity is for sure awesome but it doesn't seem to fall in this thread

>>10089558
Yes.
Yes.

>>10089546
Isn't it that force that subject A is described by B's gravity? And force of subject B towards A is described by A's gravity?

>>10089577
Is there any experiment that can experimentally prove that stuff?

>>10089581
Yes

>>10089578
They're both pulling on each other, so the opposite reaction of the smaller object pulling on the larger object is that it is pulled slightly more towards the larger object, and the same visa versa.

>>10089604
Okey, what experiments proved it?

>>10089617
Sorry, I'm not wasting my time on schizos today

>>10089625
Reference to experiment already done is shorten than this or that,.

>>10089625
Honestly I found out only Cavendish Experiment as some experimental proof of gravity and there it goes "of the wire balanced the combined gravitational force of attraction between the large and small lead spheres." which is their sum, not how big was each other.

>>10089529
I don't see why this is relevant. You are falling, not being pulled/push is what I'm saying so of course, you'll still die when you fall. Gravity is much more complicated than saying it's a force as it's tied with spacetime hence the OP's question probably. It's basically the only thing that all fundamental theories can't agree on.

>>10089368
If observing only gravity, you'll see its effect the same no matter what the frame of reference. You'll observe the object falling to earth no matter how far or where you're observing. The only thing you can't agree on is when the event took place. It's not like the curvature changes to a force when you're looking at it from Mars.

>>10080083
Gravity is just bogus theory

>>10089651
Define force.

>>10089695
[math] F^\lambda = \frac{\mathrm dP^\lambda}{\mathrm d \tau} + \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu \nu} U^\mu P^\nu [/math]

>>10089700
And what is what?

>>10089707
If you don't know that you're not qualified to participate in this discussion

>>10089711
Okey, I'm, out... However I dont get Γ, but if anything changes movements, it's force. Just remember that.

>>10089735
it's a fixing factor for coordinates transforms in non flat space

>>10089735
>but if anything changes movements
Not necessarily true in vacuum. The difference between newtonian gravitry and einstein is newton's gravity is a force pulling you to the earth while time and space remains fixed.

While the other theory states that space and time is not fixed and it bends depending on the mass of the object. That curvature it creates due to the warping of spacetime is gravity. The objects are simply travelling in a line that is then bent due to gravity.

There is another one from quantum mechanics that I have no clue how it works and how it differs from the other two above but so far experiements have proven the second one to be the most accurate at least about explaining gravity. I could be totally wrong though

>>10087978
You can only measure things which actually exist numbnuts

>>10089835
>is then bent due to gravity.
I mean bent due to the mass of the object

>>10089146
>You must have some extraordinary evidence to back this up. I'd love to see it.
Well it certainly beats "it's completely empty space" or "a probability cloud that an imaginary particle orbits".

>I must be measuring something. I can get consistent and predictable measurements, so something must be getting measured.
Yeah, an arbitrary non existent thing. Delude yourself enough and it most certainly will be consistent. Let's count how many seconds there are in a minute for instance. 1..2..3...60 seconds..That doesn't mean anything though. The measurements were already placed there by a human, not nature. You are measuring with conceptual goalpost that moves with humanities progress. Meanwhile in reality the sun is acting as an electrical transformer and creating perturbation/ coherency for other matter to form coherency of their own. That's not "time".

>But why would it oscillate as opposed to not oscillating
Because it determines magnetic field strength. No magnetism=no matter.

>Atoms and EM fields, you say, but even then, why are they distorted in the presence of a massive object?
>a massive object
You mean a massive object made of matter?

>Explaining something and knowing it exists are two separate issues.
If you can "explain" something then you inherently "know" what it is. If you can't explain what you see then you have no choice but to describe what you see using a form of languages (such as math). Descriptions are not explanations.

>We may have set them arbitrarily but we aren't changing them arbitrarily during the experiments, and you know this.
I want you to think about this more in depth, particularly the first part.

>>10089526
>he's saying it like an idiot but the point remains. like saying "time is a property/expression of matter and not a dimension"
Time is an imaginary concept, that's as simple as it gets.

>>10089836
>You can only measure things which actually exist numbnuts
Which is what I've said like 20 times now. Learn to read.

>>10090337
I-Is that the frequency of something else doing something?

>>10089549
every single nigger I meet pushing GR and SR, outside of this board at least, has been exactly like that.

>>10090337
>Time is an imaginary concept, that's as simple as it gets.
I think that is also entirely possible, I just find the idea of it being comparable to spatial dimensions silly, and yet that's how I've seen every popsci faggot treat it

>>10089560
wouldn't it be grand if they found out gravitons really did exist?

>>10090399
Time can be spacelike and space can be timelike. They're not identical but they're intrinsically tied and definitely comparable.

>>10090337
>Well it certainly beats "it's completely empty space" or "a probability cloud that an imaginary particle orbits".
Not by any of the logical arguments you have presented so far.

>Yeah, an arbitrary non existent thing. Delude yourself enough and it most certainly will be consistent.
So two perfectly tuned crystal oscillators that are vibrating in perfect harmony are completely arbitrary and we are deluding ourselves into thinking they're consistent. Same for atomic clocks.
Yeah, right, okay.
Why do they stay in sync? Why do they oscillate at all? Why do they oscillate a predictable number of times in our arbitrary unit of measure, and then we can use that number to predict how many times another oscillator will oscillate in the same period as defined by the oscillator?

>No magnetism=no matter.
Last time I brought up neutrons you didn't reply. I wonder why.

>You mean a massive object made of matter?
Yeah, that bends space time.

>If you can "explain" something then you inherently "know" what it is. If you can't explain what you see then you have no choice but to describe what you see using a form of languages (such as math). Descriptions are not explanations.
Hey, that's fair enough but it doesn't address my point. I guess I could say, non sequitur.

>I want you to think about this more in depth, particularly the first part.
I have. The fact that all of our units of measure are arbitrary is completely IRRELEVANT. The only thing that matters is that we define them in a way that they are consistent.
When I have plans for a house drawn up the units they use are completely arbitrary, but the builder doesn't build a house for ants instead of a house for humans. No, the builder builds the house to the scale envisioned because those arbitrary units have been defined in a way that we can use them consistently.

>>You can only measure things which actually exist numbnuts
>Which is what I've said like 20 times now. Learn to read.
>time is just a measurement!

>>10090810

>So two perfectly tuned crystal oscillators that are vibrating in perfect harmony are completely arbitrary and we are deluding ourselves into thinking they're consistent. Same for atomic clocks.
Uhh, yeah? It depends on the QUALITY of the crystal.

>Last time I brought up neutrons you didn't reply. I wonder why.
read >>10084458 >>10084462. If that was your reply, you answered your own question.

>Yeah, that bends space time.
Yeah well leprechauns bend adamantium, because I say they exist and can do so.

>Hey, that's fair enough but it doesn't address my point.
Yes it does. Now on your way, bub.

>The only thing that matters is that we define them in a way that they are consistent.
consistent in terms of what? What we say it is? Lol.

>When I have plans for a house drawn up the units they use are completely arbitrary, but the builder doesn't build a house for ants instead of a house for humans. No, the builder builds the house to the scale envisioned because those arbitrary units have been defined in a way that we can use them consistently.
This is not how the universe builds things.

>>10090879
>Yes it does. Now on your way, bub.
No, it doesn't. You took "know" on it's own where I used "knowing it exists".

>consistent in terms of what? What we say it is? Lol.
>It depends on the QUALITY of the crystal.
So if we know the QUALITY of the crystal we can use it as a baseline for consistency.
Nice to see you answered it yourself.

>This is not how the universe builds things.
Literally doesn't matter.

>If that was your reply, you answered your own question.
Neutrons are not affected by magnetic fields. The fact they decay into charged particles is irrelevant because they themselves are not charged. You can't accelerate them in a particle accelerator.

Yep physicists are brainlets

>>10090942

>So if we know the QUALITY of the crystal we can use it as a baseline for consistency.
>>10090337>That doesn't mean anything though. The measurements were already placed there by a human, not nature. You are measuring with conceptual goalpost that moves with humanities progress.

>Literally doesn't matter.
Only if you're a materialist.

>>10090942
>Neutrons are not affected by magnetic fields
They have magnetic moment, they most certainly are affected by magnetism.

>The fact they decay into charged particles is irrelevant because they themselves are not charged.
It's irrelevant whether they are "charged" or not. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of counting particles when they can just magically turn into other ones. "oh these neutrons aren't affected by magnetism even though every fucking thing in the universe is and oh they aren't neutrons they're protons in disguise". It's mental gymnastics.

>>10091379
Everything in the universe most definitely doesn't interact electromagnetically.
Particles don't magically turn into other particles, their constituents interact to form products. Nuclear decay is modelable.
Gluons and Z-bosons don't interact electromagnetically.

>>10091379
>You are measuring with conceptual goalpost that moves with humanities progress.
But you said it depended on the QUALITY of the oscillator, not on humanities progress.

>Only if you're a materialist.
Even less relevant to the conversation. I'm arguing that our units of measure can have worth despite being arbitrarily created.

>I'm just pointing out the absurdity of counting particles when they can just magically turn into other ones.
It may sound absurd to you but them's the breaks. Because a neutron is balanced it doesn't have any charge and that means you can't accelerate it them in a particle accelerator.
That's matter that isn't magnetic. And that fact led to nuclear bombs and nuclear power.

>>10080445
lurk more

>>10080445
ask shitty low effort questions, get shitty low effort answers

>>10091379
>The measurements were already placed there by a human, not nature.

>>10080083
Gravity is not a force. Here, this picture will help. On the left, you have space without gravity. When you go in a straight line, you go in a straight line.

On the right, you have a large body causing gravity. Note the curved space. If you try to go in a straight line, you will instead be going towards the source of gravity.

>But gravity works regardless of whether you're in motion.

What I just gave you is basically a very dumbed down version of how it really works. You have to remember it's not just space, but spacetime itself which is bent. You may be immobile in space, but you're still in motion in time, and thus your straight line is curving into the gravity source.

>>10092199
Did that anon just figure out how gravity actually works?

>>10092199
That's just frame of reference.
From the object's frame of reference something is pushing on it. From the frame of reference of spacetime the object is following a straight path on spacetime.

>>10092214
>what is GR

>>10084737
>density
Gravity is an effect of light density. It is literally the weight of light that pushes down matter.

Ps. Nothing attracts at a distance. All is mechanically explainable.

>>10092287
Radiation pressure is a different thing and not an explanation for gravity.

>>10092287
>Gravity is an effect of light density.
This is incredibly stupid.

>>10092199
>Space is a box
Great, now point to the origin of "space". Differentiate it from the mass.
>But it's the absence of mass
And pressure mediation fills absences. It's filled space.

>>10091550
>But you said it depended on the QUALITY of the oscillator, not on humanities progress.
And a certain quality of human knows how to make a certain quality of crystal. Now we're up to diamond anvils making materials that would otherwise be impossible so I wonder what threshold will be broken next.

>Even less relevant to the conversation. I'm arguing that our units of measure can have worth despite being arbitrarily created.
I'm actually referring to "material" itself. How does one think that think any material has more value than the next when it's all made of the same shit? How does one delude themselves into focusing on quantities when only the quality of motion constitutes the temporary and fleeting forms we know as "matter"? If matter has no actual quantitative value then what is the value of measuring it? the value is arbitrary, as arbitrary as the differentiation of matter and EM. It's the same shit in a different quality.

>Because a neutron is balanced it doesn't have any charge and that means you can't accelerate it them in a particle accelerator.
Don't see what that has to do with a neutron and proton being affected by magnetism. In this case okay it can't be affected by a big halback array, that doesn't mean it's not affected by it. That's like saying a piece of bismuth isn't affected by a magnetic field because it doesn't attract like a ferro/paramagnetic material. Well despite having mostly neutrons, bismuth is most certainly affected by the presence of a magnetic field and this is evident in its growth and how it interacts with magnetism.

>>10092287
>Gravity is an effect of light density. It is literally the weight of light that pushes down matter
>Ps. Nothing attracts at a distance. All is mechanically explainable.

“Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the ether, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the ether.” - Nikola Tesla

>>10080445
How the fuck do you think hydro electric, and to a lesser extent wind and all other turbines, work?

Your question was poorly worded. It didn't get a proper response due to that. But your answer is this:

We fucking are.

>>10084424
I fully believe this is the point where Op will unveil his "theory" which is not a theory or hypothesis but a bunch of dumb words that sound smart to normies, and reads like a fucking anime fan theory.

>>10092327
>And a certain quality of human knows how to make a certain quality of crystal.
Irrelevant. Let me tell you why.
Say I have two crystal oscillators of unknown quality and some device that can count how many times they oscillate (not in a time period, just counting oscillations).
I start them both oscillating and find when the first one hits the 1000th oscillation the second hits the 1200th oscillation. Is there a relationship between the two oscillators? I don't know, so I run the test again and get the same result. Okay, there's probably a relationship, so I run the test 10 more times, 100 more times with the same results. Okay, how about if I run for 2000 oscillations of the first oscillator, do I get 2400 oscillations on the second? If I run the first for 1000 oscillations and then start the second do I get to 2000 oscillations at the same time the second reaches 1200?
Let's say all my tests result in a 1:1.2 ratio in my oscillators. Well, with two imperfect oscillators and simple counting I have worked out they have consistent oscillations. Now I can arbitrarily make a time period called a "blip" that corresponds for 1000 oscillations of the first oscillator. I can use that to calibrate other oscillators and so on.

>I'm actually referring to "material" itself...It's the same shit in a different quality.
I guess this is true only in that e=mc^2 but the rest is just philosophical garbage. Measurements are extremely useful for us to function, even if it is just estimating distance for how hard to throw our javelin to hit a wild boar.

>Well despite having mostly neutrons, bismuth is most certainly affected by the presence of a magnetic field and this is evident in its growth and how it interacts with magnetism.
Neutrons don't outweigh other particles in the atom. They're neutral themselves, they don't exert neutrality onto other particles.

>>10080083
H•Y•D•R•O•E•L•E•C•T•R•I•C•I•T•Y

>>10092327
What is space filled with?

>>10092287
This is the most genius thing since GR. Its actually just a full invesion of GR lmao, instead of a bendable spacetime you get a variable light speed, and lucifer becomes less than chronos again.

People seem to define 'empty' space as 'an area absent of measurable mass'. We define it this way due to an operational bias we have because everything we interact with in our daily lives isn't empty space.
A better vantage point is offered by defining matter as 'empty space + additional properties' with one of these 'additional properties' being the thing itself that causes what we observe as gravity.

Also, the autism poster seems to be baselessly asserting that when people refer to space, they think that it is void of the fundamental properties of the universe, which is obviously not how people are using it.

>>10092563
*inversion

>>10092527
Energy. Be it light, heat or matter.

>>10092567
What about when the space doesn't have matter, and therefore cannot have heat, and photons are also absent.

>>10090405
What about graviolis?

>>10092569
Photons are never absent. They are literally everywhere. Thatnis what zero point energy refers too. The local baseline value of photons.

>>10092575
What about between photons?
Photons are discrete and can be measured individually, to claim that they are everpresent requires even a modicum of evidence that you do not have.
If a photodetector can capture and record individual photons why it's it not literally always capturing a continuous uninterrupted stream of photons in every location all at once?

>>10092591
The photons are lined up bumper to bumper. Well their waveform is not the particle itself.

>>10092622
Why have these everpresent continuous photons never been detected?
You're saying space is fully packed with photons? Do you have literally any evidence at all to back up this claim?

What is the medium through which the photon waveform travels or stands in?

>>10087978
>. Name a property and an attribute of a measurement
Its method
Its error

>>10089577
Bro, they don't do the same work, the smaller mass does less work because it pulls the larger mass a smaller distance. The larger mass pulls the smaller mass a longer distance therefore it does more work.

>>10092414
That isn't the only way, also there are better ways than harvesting gravity, like harvesting heat.

>>10091910
The answers weren't even that shitty, they're all valid responses.

>>10092757
>work only depends on distance

>>10080083
No.
you'll never even properly harness energy.

>>10092630
Not fully packed, energy density varies.

There is room for a void. But it can hold no properties of its own.

>>10092630
>You're saying space is fully packed with photons? Do you have literally any evidence at all to back up this claim?

Name a place in the universe that is not touched by starlight.

>>10092901
Your basement.

>>10092327
It's a representation of space as vectors you fucking retard.

>>10092859
Batteries, flywheels, hydroelectric plants do not store energy because ... ?

>>10092880
Why can't the area between photons have properties? What form does all this photonic energy take? Waves? Waves of what?

What is the medium through which photons propagate?

>>10092859
I'm using chemical energy to jack off right now. Checkmate.

>>10093127

>>10092901
Most of it. Even if the universe is infinite and there are infinitely many stars, only finitely many stars are within reach. There are directions you can look into space and see no starlight regardless of redshifting.

>>10093130
You haven't answered the question. Are you saying photons are waves in the motion of some other particle?

>>10093132
https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/waves/wavemotion.html

>>10093137
You still haven't answered.
Yes, waves propagate through a medium. The medium of sound waves is air.
What is your proposed medium for light waves?

>>10093139
Are you retarded?

1. I'm not the one you were first talking to.

2. I provided examples of how particles can behave like waves.

They don't need a medium. Photons are emitted in waves.

>>10093144
Waves of WHAT
what is doing the waving you fucking dunce

>>10093155
Waves of photons.

>>10093155
Themselves

>>10093161
>>10093163
So a photon is a wave of photons?
So space is completely filled with a sea of standing photon particles collectively producing a wavelike motion?

>>10093167
No, waves of photons are waves of photons.

>>10093169
So space is fully packed with waves of photons at every point?

>>10093167
>he thinks mediums need to be some homogenous continuum and can't propagate at the same speed as the wave along with it

>>10093176

>>10093139
Photons are em particles they don't need a medium. Why do you think the speed of light is an observational constant.

>>10093180
>>10093184
If you're not the guy in originally replied to I could not give less of a shit what the fuck your retard brain thinks. I'm trying to probe into that one guy's worldview to find out how exactly he thinks the world works before I try to disagree.
If you are, answer the damn question or fuck off.

All this talk about light is just a distraction from the other Anon continuing to get his arguments picked apart.
Also, as waves spread out they'll naturally decrease in density and as they decrease in density gaps must form between their interactions and the claim is that there must be something other than "space(time)" that fills these gaps.

>>10093193
Every wave needs a medium to propagate in. That's the definition of a wave, there has to be something that is doing the waving.
What kind of waves are photons? Waves through what medium?

>>10093196
>the claim is that there must be something other than "space(time)" that fills these gaps.

Why?

>>10093201

>>10093207
Thanks for the picture of yourself dude but that's not an answer to my question

>>10093210
You've had an answer, several times. You just went "NUH UH" and kept displaying your sub 90 IQ.

>>10093201
>Every wave needs a medium to propagate in
Did you not just read what I said. If that were true the speed of light would not be a constant.

>>10093215
YOU did not give me any kind of relevant answer, you just spouted nonsense irrelevant to and inconsistent with this reply chain.
You're not the guy I originally replied to and your participation in this conversation thus far has me convinced you're some kind of cuckold.

>>10093223
Okay, I want you to say what you think was told to you. Go ahead.

>>10093203
Because that is what they are claiming.

>>10093226
Then they're retarded. That's like claiming that if there's a gap between horses that there must be another animal between the horses.

>>10093221
Why would it make the speed of light variable?

What is your proposed model for how photons work?

>>10093236
Light travels at the speed of light no matter what. If it were traveling through a medium you would expect the speed of light to change depending on your speed relative to the medium it was traveling through. Which has consistently been found not to be the case.

>What is your proposed model for how photons work

No idea. All i know is that light exhibits some characteristics of a particle and some of what we usually associate with wave.

>>10093246
>Light travels at the speed of light no matter what. If it were traveling through a medium you would expect the speed of light to change depending on your speed relative to the medium it was traveling through. Which has consistently been found not to be the case.

I hate to be the guy to break it to you, but light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Light propagates at a different speed through certain mediums.

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/speedoflight/index.html

>>10093256
>Light propagates at a different speed through certain mediums.

No it doesn't lol not that had anything to do with what i said. Light still travels at the same speed in water or air. It just takes longer to reach the other side because of obstruction

>>10093260
> Light still travels at the same speed in water or air. It just takes longer to reach the other side because of obstruction
>travels at the same speed
>takes longer to reach the other side

>>10093265
I hope you appreciate my expert drawing skills

>>10093246
What I'm trying to get at is that photons are waves through the electromagnetic field and you're retarded.
There's no such thing as a wave without a medium, a wave is defined by the medium through which the waving is happening and a wave categorically cannot exist without a medium through which to propagate you fucking retard.

If you want to propose a new definition for waves that excludes the requirement for a thing to actually fucking do the action of waving, you will need to explain and mathematically describe your new definition so we can agree on what the words we are using actually mean.

>>10093246
>>10093256
>>10093260
>>10093265

>>10093265
Sorry but he is correct on this sole point. Light always travels at c, through water and air it simply bounces around more between arbitrary point a and arbitrary point b.

>>10093274
>What I'm trying to get at is that photons are waves through the electromagnetic field and you're retarded.

If you care more about definitons and semantics that's fine. Because i couldn't give less of a shit. My only point was that as far as we know light does not need a medium

>>10093282
It's still fucking funny when you phrase it that way.

>>10093272
Oh, you meant the photons travel at a constant speed, just the wave which travels slower. Yeah, that's completely true.

>>10093286
It's not pointlessly arguing about definitions, semantics is only unimportant if your point hinges on arbitrarily defining words differently instead of actually being correct. Sure, you can claim waves don't need a medium, but that's only true if you ignore what words actually mean and redefine waves to not need a medium in your own head on the spot. The world doesn't change based on your stupid fucking lala-land brainscape.

Who is this WE who doesn't know that light needs a medium to travel through? Physicists have understood the nature of photons as a wave through the electromagnetic field for decades. I think you mean that YOU personally don't know dick about dick.

>>10093304
>hey guys physicists still use ether theory right

>>10093310
?

>>10093304
you can keep asserting over and over again that waves need to travel through a medium. It won't make it true. Out of curiosity where are you getting this definiton from. Just of the top of my head i can name several em type waves that do not require X-rays, radio waves, microwaves, gamma rays etc. And of course light. I can only imagine that you are applying the notion of a literal wave or ripple in a pond to the concept of an em wave which doesn't fit.

>>10093298
No that's not what i meant at all

>>10093316
I think he means that light is considered a wave and a particle at the same time sonce it exhibit s multiple properties from both camps.

>>10093322
Every type of wave you mentioned is the same thing just with a different wavelength you god damned retard.
Waves consist ofoscillationsorvibrationsof a physicalmediumor afield, around relatively fixed locations. This is what a wave IS in physics you dumb cunt.

What does EM mean to you? What differentiates EM waves from other types of waves? Define these things for me, because you seem to be making baseless assumptions.

I'm so glad this thread is over bump limit and we can all finally forget this ever happened

>>10093304
>Physicists have understood the nature of photons as a wave through the electromagnetic field for decades.
I don't think that's right, Anon.

>>10093329
>Every type of wave you mentioned is the same thing just with a different wavelength you god damned retard

No shit sherlock

>What does EM mean to you? What differentiates EM waves from other types of waves?

Simply that electro magnetic waves are not mechanical ones. That they don't need a medium to propegate through. And after all this time you have not demonstrated or linked to a source that claims em waves require a medium

>>10093336
The standard model has existed relatively as-is since the 70s. Electromagnetic waves have been described mathematically for over a hundred years.
>>10093346
Here I'm going to copy paste the first source I found in 5 seconds of searching
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459
"This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have strong reasons to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws."

The physical definition of a wave is literally copy-pasted into the post you're replying to. You're talking shit.

>>10093377
Meant to reply to >>10093346

>>10093377
Yes and absolutely nothing about it requires that a wave travel through a medium. If you scroll down from where you copied and pasted that definiton from im sure it will explain to you the difference betwen mechanical and em waves.

>>10093371
>Here I'm going to copy paste the first source I found in 5 seconds of searching

I have no clue how that supports anything you have said thus far.

>>10093371
>published january 1st 1865
I wonder if anything has changed about our knowledge of physics since then.

>>10093617
It'd really be a shame if the proposals in this paper had been proven wrong in the past 150 years.