/sci/ - Science & Math

Baby don't Higgs me.

No more of this thread.

>>10770904
We're still working on magnets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q

a ripple in the ether

>>10770922
>>>/x/

>>10770945
?

Is a dark matter something bigger and something we don't see cus its scale is so huge was like bacterias on a palm (they cant observe where they are)?

>>10770959
>>>/x/

mass bending space-time

>>10770904
E L E M E N T 1 1 5

>>10770904

is gravity a forcefield which vector is changed by mass of an object?

>>10770915
FUCKING MAGNETS HOW DO THEY WORK

>>10770922
unironically the concept of ether is more alive than ever its just that now it is called "spacetime"... IF general relativity is correct gravity is a ripple in the spacetime substrata or as you said a ripple in the ether.

>>10770992
It's like a fat bulge in the moo moo dress of the creator.

>>10770904
is gravity a forcefield whose vector is changed by objects mass?

It's an emergent property of time dilation.
Imagine walking at the side of the road with your eyes closed.
Under your left foot there is asphalt. Under your right foot there is mud.
Assuming you walk forward perfectly, as you walk you'll tend to “gravitate” towards the right because you move slower in the mud.
You can imagine the same with a tank since it rotates by changing the speed of the wheels' tracks.

The mud is a region of space in which “time” moves slower than in the asphalt. Turns out that time moves slower where there is a lot of stuff (or energy).

>>10770959
>>10770922
SHHHH. That's like the 'n' word here. Use "strings"/"Quantum foam" to disguise it so you don't upset the bugmen.

>>10770915
Apparently so is Richard Feynman, except of course he's dead.

>>10770992
Do not equate something with properties to something that doesn't and completely made up.

>>10771036
>property of time dilation.
But time has no properties...

>>10770904
Coherent magnetic attraction

>>10770992
"I don't understand spacetime so I'm going to say it's like ether".

>>10771131
"I don't know what spacetime or gravity are, so I'm going to spread my bullshit".

>>110771131
> but time has no properties...
Emergent. Like molecules don't have a “heat” propriety but together they do, like proteins and minerals don't have an "intelligence" property but together they form consciousness.
Please read the explanation again.

I plan on explaining what time dilation truly is (without curved space, using thermodynamics) but I'm afraid you'll have to wait my thesis. Don't want my ideas stolen haha.

>>10771131
>Durations of physical processes can't be compared

>>10771172
>I plan on explaining what time dilation truly is (without curved space, using thermodynamics) but I'm afraid you'll have to wait my thesis. Don't want my ideas stolen haha.
Time dilation already appears in special relativity, which is flat spacetime. Thus it's already explained and your thesis is crap.

>>10771160
>"I don't understand spacetime so I'm going to say it's like ether".
Do you understand spacetime? Can you give me a property that time and or space has that makes it a "thing" that "exists"? A phenomena that causes something to happen? No, you don't have that. You have an assumption with no empirical evidence whatsoever. So you're absolutely correct.
I don't understand spacetime because it's completely made up hogwash. Why would I bother wasting my time testing an assumption? There is literally no date for me to test. That isn't science.

>>10771160

>"I don't know what spacetime or gravity are, so I'm going to spread my bullshit".
>"I'm gonna point out that this individual has not answered OP's question so I won't ether and will continue making myself look like a jackass"

Good job, you indeed look like a jackass. How about you try differentiating magnetic attraction from gravity or providing an explanation to gravity yourself other than "HURR ROCK ATTRACT ROCK".

>>10771172
>Emergent

If spontaneously gets properties for no reason? The "thing " you're speaking of or "time"? In which case you still have not given me a property of time.

>>10771195
>Can you give me a property that time and or space has that makes it a "thing" that "exists"?
Time passes, lengths can be measured.

>Why would I bother wasting my time testing an assumption?
"Time doesn't exists but it can be wasted"

>try differentiating magnetic attraction from gravity
Gauss Law.

>>10771195
>How about you try differentiating magnetic attraction from gravity
How about the 39 orders of magnitude difference in strength? Or that magnetism has 0 divergence? Or that gravitational acceleration has no mass dependence? Or that the force between magnets follows an inverse cube distance relation, rather than inverse square for gravity?

>>10770907
Don't Higgs me...

>>10771210
>Time passes, lengths can be measured.
"time passes", and what is this time?
Resistance is not time
Density is not time
Permitivity is not time
A medium is not time
Demensionality is not time
The absence of dimensionality is not time
Qualities are not time

So basically everything that causes us to percieve this illusion you have dubbed "time" is really just other phenomena mutually impelling each other. It's not a force, nor a field modality or a conugate of somethingIt's comepletely made up to describe reality in terms of quantification.
Just like every other measurement.

>"Time doesn't exists but it can be wasted"
>Energy is time
No

>Gauss Law.
>Which deals with a closed surface and electric fields

Now what causes electromagnetism and what causes gravity? Don't describe to be particulars, explain the cause.

>>10770904

gravity=/=magnets

>>10771191
It's a beautiful and perfect description. But I want to know why not just how. A real physicist would tell me “I don't know, but here's Minkowski”. I didn't want to sound like an ass bro my idea is something else entirely I don't want to replace Einstein.
>>10771195
I'm telling you, time DOESN'T HAVE PROPERTIES. It doesn't exist. We can't compare the rotation of our planet to everything else. It's an emergent property of time DILATION. Focus on dilation.

>>10771215
>Or that the force between magnets follows an inverse cube distance relation, rather than inverse square for gravity?

Tidal "force". Also saying that magnets have a "force" inbetween them is like saying two tables have a "force" inbetween them because you used feng shui to arrange them differently. The difference in strength is because the magnetism from the planet is INCOHERENT. It is made from a conglomeration pf para and diamagnetic materials which alter it. Obviously a higher quality dielectric will exhibit a stronger field.

>>10771241
I'm telling you, time DOESN'T HAVE PROPERTIES. It doesn't exist.

That's what I've been telling you though.

>It's an emergent property of time DILATION. Focus on dilation.
DILATION OF WHAT? You say "time" doesn't exist yet you're now using it? So what is it? What the fuck is being dilated? Your new vagina?

>>10771225
>>Time passes, lengths can be measured.
>"time passes", and what is this time?
>Resistance is not time
>Density is not time
>Permitivity is not time
>A medium is not time
>Demensionality is not time
>The absence of dimensionality is not time
>Qualities are not time
"Look all these quantities that have no time dimensions.... They can't be time. Thus nothing can be time".
What about frequency? What about speed?

>It's not a force, nor a field modality or a conugate of somethingIt's comepletely made up to describe reality in terms of quantification.
"A distance is not a force or a field, so it doesn't exist either".

>>Gauss Law.
>>Which deals with a closed surface and electric fields
There is also a Gauss law for the Magnetic field, your dense illiterate. And it says there are no magnetic monopoles. But you have "mass monopoles", and only positive ones.

>Now what causes electromagnetism and what causes gravity? Don't describe to be articulars, explain the cause.
Exchange of photons and exchange of gravitons.

>>10771242
You're implying a vertical magnetic field between objects and the earth. Fire charged particles between the objects and the earth. Show me that one charge bends to the left, and the other charge bends to the right. Otherwise, it cannot possibly be magnetism in any conceivable capacity (which is already known for a number of other reasons as well).
>>10771244
Define time as the evolution of physical systems, and the comparison of such between different systems. Now move one system very quickly. The resulting difference in evolution matches relativity exactly.

>>10771242
>The difference in strength is because the magnetism from the planet is INCOHERENT. It is made from a conglomeration pf para and diamagnetic materials which alter it. Obviously a higher quality dielectric will exhibit a stronger field.
That makes zero sense....

>>10771244
Everyone agrees that scientists are bad at naming things lol are you here for science or semantics?

>>10771244
>DILATION OF WHAT? [nonsense] What the fuck is being dilated? [more nonsense]
The lapse of time between two events measure by different observers.

when you turn on the hose and start swishing it
the water flow gets dilated
it stretches and gets distorted
the same would happen to your body when you reach the light speed

>>10771259
What about frequency? What about speed?

"OF WHAT", You see. It doesn't work. "Speed and fequency" are only considered because we think time is something. There is no such thing as "speed", its a standard of measure. There is no such thing as "frequency", you're specifically talking about SOMETHING ELSE doing an "action" at specific intervals. "Speed and frequency" are purely descriptions.

description:
>this car is going 60 mph
Does not explain to me how the fucking car works or what a "mph" or even what "60" is.

explanation:

>This car using a difference in pressure and qualities of air in comparison to the environment around it, rotates a specifically designed primemover and turns it into linear motion.

Explains how the car works without using "speed" or frequency.

>"A distance is not a force or a field, so it doesn't exist either".
No it isn't. Distance is another description that doesn't really mean anything when you consider that the only thing that gives the illusion of "distance" is the SHIT INBETWEEN THE "DISTANCE". I suppose in your mind "distance" is what causes a static shock too right?

>There is also a Gauss law for the Magnetic field, your dense illiterate. And it says there are no magnetic monopoles. But you have "mass monopoles", and only positive ones.
"Mass monopoles". You know what "mass" is made of right? You know that all mass has magnetism right?

>Exchange of photons and exchange of gravitons.
Of which there is no empirical evidence of.

>>10771260
>You're implying a vertical magnetic field between objects and the earth.
>What> A magnet has a bloch wall?

>Fire charged particles between the objects and the earth. Show me that one charge bends to the left, and the other charge bends to the right. Otherwise, it cannot possibly be magnetism in any conceivable capacity (which is already known for a number of other reasons as well).
"lolwut". "Lolwut" to the rest of your post too.

>>10771264
>"this iron core has a bunch of fucking elements that are diamagnetic around it that nerfs the field."
basically

>>10771268
>>10771282

"time doesn't exist"
"except when measured by two observers"

So which is it? I'm trying to figure out what this contradiction is supposed to mean. Saying "time exists" is like saying "a meter exists", a meter OF WHAT? The "Of what" being the actual phenomena and "time" being the measurement using in the language of mathematics.

You're basically saying a language is a phenomena with properties that acts upon something. Technically this is true, but only to the degree that we let ourselves be wavered by the language. It would only happen NON PHYSICALLY and synthesized instantaneously.
Aka "meet me at 10 o clock", is not a force that impels to do something.

>>10771285
That's a medium though, not "Time".

>>10771302
You are just an illiterate solipsist.

>>10771288
>"lolwut". "Lolwut" to the rest of your post too.
>laughing off a practically implementable and definitively conclusive experiment
Clearly you understand that critically testing your ideas would reveal that they're bunk.

a universe simulation requires the recording and the processing of the position of objects in 3d space@ gravity is a function of the time dimension and it is a constraint rule applied to all objects to ensure position data can be updated reliably@ if you use a slip burner to bypass the gravity constraint objects are partially destroyed in relation to the active simulation and become an erroneous object hu call "dark matter"@

A pseudo-Riemannian metric on space time

>>10771315
>Clearly you understand that critically testing your ideas would reveal that they're bunk.
>Test something that is absent of having testable properties

Fuck off you knuckle dragging yahoo. What is there for me to test? I can't test time because it's NOT A PHENOMENA TO BE "TESTED".
>>10771260
>Define time as the evolution of physical systems, and the comparison of such between different systems. Now move one system very quickly. The resulting difference in evolution matches relativity exactly.
Is basically equating "time" to a comparison. A comparison is not a thing. It's what you do with two or more things that actually exist. I'm sticking to my guns, time is a measurement and nothing else.

>>10771314
You're just yet another moron I've asked this question to who couldn't come up with an answer that was logical. Go ahead and try, I'll be here all day.

>>10771316
>a universe simulation
Well we're talking about an actual universe here. Not an assumed one.

>>10771781
>What is there for me to test? I can't test time because it's NOT A PHENOMENA TO BE "TESTED".
That test wasn't about time, it was about the bending of moving charges, which is distinctly different between magnetic and gravitational phenomena.

>Is basically equating "time" to a comparison. A comparison is not a thing. It's what you do with two or more things that actually exist. I'm sticking to my guns, time is a measurement and nothing else.
Yeah, a measurement is a comparison, no shit. It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether you consider time as a thing on its own or as a comparison of the evolution of systems. Both can be measured in seconds, and these measurements can be compared to nonrelativistic models vs relativistic models, and the relativistic are far more accurate.

OP, time is no less unreal than your immutable, genetically inferior, pathetic, rusty micro brain surmounting that of a paralyzed, hairless, cave monkey. Time is an illusion, like your existence being meaningful in any aspect. What don't you understand, monkey ass?

>>10771816
>That test wasn't about time, it was about the bending of moving charges, which is distinctly different between magnetic and gravitational phenomena.

Because one is COHERENT and the other ISN'T. How distinctly different are they? Are they still doing the same thing? ("bending")
It's like saying that the blue spectrum of light is a completely different thing then the red. It's still fucking "light it's just a different form.

>Why does thing bend more around more coherent dielectric
Couldn't have anything to do with permittivity/permeability of WHAT THE OBJECTS ARE COMPOSED OF.

>Yeah, a measurement is a comparison, no shit
And measurements are not real. They are concepts. Time is a measurement, therefore has no basis in reality.

>It doesn't matter one tiny bit whether you consider time as a thing on its own or as a comparison of the evolution of systems.
It actually does matter. There's this thing called "cause and effect" and it's not a distinction without a difference.

>Both can be measured in seconds, and these measurements can be compared to nonrelativistic models vs relativistic models, and the relativistic are far more accurate.

Lol, but once again you still don't even know what you're measuring. You're basically trying to convince me that a certain standard of measure is better when it comes to measuring a shadow. So tell me the cause of gravity (and/or) magnetism or distinguish WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE AND DO without the use of measurements. Should be pretty simple to do if you ask me.

>stuff with mass has gravity
Okay great, is mass the cause?
>no it's a force that pulls two or more masses together but it's not the actual mass
okay so what causes this?
>changes in spacetime
but how can something with no properties change? How can a measurement be real? Space isn't "emptiness", it's "filled" right?
??

>stuff with mass pointing coherently has magnetism
okay great, is mass the cause?
>no because then it would be gravity.
So it's geomancy?
??

>>10770968


>DMT
>aliens
>GMO

whooa my dude

>>10771877
Paramagnetism and diamagnetism still follow inverse cube relations, you can't magically make it inverse square by arranging it right and calling it "incoherent."

>but how can something with no properties change?
Despite your insisting that it doesn't have properties, it does. The metric is a property. The Riemann tensor is a property.

>So tell me the cause of gravity (and/or) magnetism or distinguish WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE AND DO without the use of measurements.
You're obviously not going to accept this explanation but I'll give it anyway. Mass and energy affect geometry. This alteration of geometry produces all the effects we call gravitational. Magnetism is caused by moving charges, and is mediated by the electromagnetic field.

Any argument you make about gravity being magnetic can be defeated by dropping a bunch of different magnets and materials, of different sizes and strengths, and seeing that they all accelerate precisely the same way.
>Muh incoherence
Then explain precisely what an "incoherent" magnetic phenomenon is and how it somehow has wildly different properties than normal magnetism.

>>10771946
>Paramagnetism and diamagnetism still follow inverse cube relations, you can't magically make it inverse square by arranging it right and calling it "incoherent.
Just like you can't magically make a mass have "center" or "origin" unless you assume so.

>The metric is a property. The Riemann tensor is a property.
Please let this be the last time I tell you that measurements aren't properties.

> Mass and energy affect geometry.
Not according to plastic injection molding. Matter is a conjugate of form, not a dictator. Energy is just a difference in potential.

>This alteration of geometry produces all the effects we call gravitational.
..as well as magnetic..The only difference between a magnet and an unmagnetized piece of the same material is obviously an alteration of that material. It is induced by electricity. So basically this still doesn't differentiate it from magnetism.
Magnetism is caused by moving charges, and is mediated by the electromagnetic field.
A regular magnet? With no electricity running in it that is.

>Any argument you make about gravity being magnetic can be defeated by dropping a bunch of different magnets and materials, of different sizes and strengths, and seeing that they all accelerate precisely the same way.
>all objects have the same density
>all objects have the same area
>"drops" hydrogen
>"drops" smoke
>"drops" apple to have it grow up into an apple tree and the other matter evaporate into the atmosphere.

>Then explain precisely what an "incoherent" magnetic phenomenon is
Lol, how about a broken magnet
>align atoms a certain way
>drop magnet
>holy shit the field is no longer coherent because I knocked everything around
>breaks into even smaller magnets
>all these incoherent pieces now with several polarities some opposing each other, but still acting as one by attracting each other.
>now lets throw some ceramics, aluminum and copper in it.
>wait, they already put that in most magnets
>b-but only iron is magnetic!

>>10771131
Schizophrenia belongs in >>>/x/

>>10771179
>Durations of physical processes can't be compared
>Durations of actions means something.

It's the action that means something, not how it's described. Can be useful for reproducing the phenomena, but inherently is not something that is a cause to it.

>>10772117
I agree, speculating about "gravity" as a separate "force" or field modality is indeed /x/ tier since there is absolutely no proof of such.

>>10771195
>Can you give me a property that time and or space has that makes it a "thing" that "exists"?
I don't understand what you mean by property. Special relativity describes how spacetime works and its predictions can and have been tested. You seem to be completely ignoring everything said about it and then saying there is nothing describing it and it doesn't exist.

>>10772102
>breaks into even smaller magnets
>all these incoherent pieces now with several polarities some opposing each other, but still acting as one by attracting each other.
Congratulations, now you have a magnetic field that drops off even more quickly with distance than inverse cube due to higher order moments. Even further from the inverse square you need.

>>10772164
>I don't understand what you mean by property.
"Hot", "cold" ,"Wet", "dry", "large", "small", a feature. Those are properties and they are exhibited by things that exist in reality. The qualitative. What qualities does "space" have? What "features" does it exhibit? It's an attribute of something else that has properties. A privation, not a thing. It's like saying a "shadow" is real and has properties. Shadows aren't real and they're the absence of something that has properties (illumination).

Example:
>air gets heated, air expands
The "air" is "heated" which results in expansion of the exact same fucking thing being heated. "The air" and "heat" are not a force. The air is matter and the properties it has are "heat". Introduce other qualities such as "cold" and you alter the air. It will contract. You have altered something that exists with the properties that it exhibits and what it doesn't exhibit (propertiesobtained from something else perhaps).

Now equate this to "Space" and "time". You can't do it because "time" is not a property of anything and "space" has no properties. The "space" is fucking filled. It's EM and hydrogen molecules, motion, the things that have the actual properties that are anything but "space". What is "space" even describing in your context? The distance between arbitrary point and other arbitrary point? That doesn't mean anything other than what you want it to mean.

>Special relativity describes how spacetime works and its predictions can and have been tested.
Descriptions are not explanations.

>You seem to be completely ignoring everything said about it and then saying there is nothing describing it and it doesn't exist.
Because it doesn't! You're using math as proof when you don't even know what you're trying to prove. You're reifying something that has no existence and you don't even understand why because "the math tells you otherwise". Well once again, math is just a quantified description of what actually occurs.

>>10772189
In only there were an immense electrical transformer to mutually impel this incoherency coherently

>Even further from the inverse square you need.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

Good thing there are more then 2 bodies floating out there interacting with each other and not just 1 solitary source of graviolis.

>Gravity attracts mass
>has "gravity" originating from the center of mass
>So what is the gravity at the exact center of this mass?
>0
>wait why?
>cause the matter is on all sides of the center cancelling it out
>so the cause of gravity is no gravity?
>No no, there's two masses of course, so the cause is in the center of the distance between the two masses, in relation to their size and mass of course.
>What is at the center of this distance?
>oh uh... also no mass or gravity....this not-a-thing measurement we invented called "Spacetime"
>yeah but you already measured the distance though, what causes the distance?
>the distance/measurement itself
>but things don't explain themselves

So what the fuck?

>>10772278
God EUcucks are so embarrassing. Literally the same sentences and fake dialogues word for word posted over and over again. Also, tidal forces don't magically make the field from a magnet drop off with the square of distance.

>>10772207
>What qualities does "space" have?
Density and curvature.

>Now equate this to "Space" and "time".
When you place energy in spacetime it causes spacetime to bend.

>Descriptions are not explanations.
Explanation of what? What does your description of air explain?

>Because it doesn't!
Too bad all experiments prove it does.

>You're using math as proof when you don't even know what you're trying to prove.
You're projecting.

>>10772484
>Density and curvature.
How dense and curved is space?
>if it differs then it isn't something specific

>When you place energy in spacetime it causes spacetime to bend.
But energy is specifically caused by a change in something. You can't "place" energy, you move it from where it is to where it isn't. Even the law of thermodynamics disagrees with this explanation.

>Explanation of what?
Explanation of gravity and spacetime? There isn't one that isn't a a pile of fallacies stacked on top of another.

>What does your description of air explain?
It was to explain to you what a "property" is. You asked, or at least the person i was replying to asked. A "property" basically requires something to "posses" that property. "Space" doesn't "posses" anything, it's just a medium. Full of atomic interactions/em, motion. It's not quantifiable "As something".


>Too bad all experiments prove it does.
There is no experiment on earth, nor will ever be one that can reify an absence. It is absolutely impossible. So "no u".

>You're projecting.
I suppose, you're not actually using the math you're just agreeing with when you say "Special relativity describes how spacetime works and its predictions can and have been tested".

>>10772401
>thinking that we're embarrassed by people who agree with an abject failure refrigerator mechanic who was literally nicknamed for his stupidity and disliked and disagreed with by nearly every electrical engineer of his time and even to this day.

It's the difference in strength that causes gravity to begin with. You can't have just "one" body. It's two bodies AND their center masses creating the differential/"tidal" force. That makes it inverse cube to the distance. The force is not equal among the parts facing away/towards to objects"gravitating" towards each other.
Calculating it from the center assumes that it's specifically the center that's causing the gravity. It's not. It's all the mass on all parts of the earth in motion.

>>10772838
>How dense and curved is space?
It depends on where/when you are.

>>if it differs then it isn't something specific
The temperature of air differs you hypocritical moron.

>But energy is specifically caused by a change in something. You can't "place" energy, you move it from where it is to where it isn't.
Why does it matter that it was moved from somewhere else? Are you capable of getting out of baseless semantic arguments and actually presenting some substance?

>Explanation of gravity and spacetime?
What about gravity and spacetime? It certainly explains how they behave. You are just going to keep asking "why?" for every explanation given to you and then declare victory once we reach the limit of our present understanding, which shows nothing since the same "argument" can be applied to anything.

>There isn't one that isn't a a pile of fallacies stacked on top of another.
Like what?

>It was to explain to you what a "property" is.
So it's a "description, not an explanation." If you are happy with your description of properties of air, you should be happy with my description of properties of space. If not, then explain air.

>There is no experiment on earth, nor will ever be one that can reify an absence.
There is nothing you can say that will make these experiments go away. Keep repeating "reify," it really makes you seem sane.

>>10770904
no one knows

>>10772925
I'm gay!

bumping with dubs

>>10772918
>It depends on where/when you are.
So it's nothing specific.

>The temperature of air differs you hypocritical moron.
That's because it's an actual thing to be different you idiot. Space is only "different" when you talk about the shit that it actually is (a medium).

>Why does it matter that it was moved from somewhere else?
Because energy is neither created nor destroyed? Also it's the "bending and "curving" that causes "energy" to be moved, you don't just "place" it willy nilly. The actions of the medium itself IS the fucking energy. The way you phrased it "energy" is just this whole other animal that you just insert into space. That's where I got confused.

>What about gravity and spacetime? It certainly explains how they behave.
What? They explain themselves? Things explain themselves?

>You are just going to keep asking "why?" for every explanation given to you
That is what a scientist does, yes.

>and then declare victory once we reach the limit of our present understanding, which shows nothing since the same "argument" can be applied to anything.
Not science.

>If you are happy with your description of properties of air, you should be happy with my description of properties of space. If not, then explain air.

>The air is matter and the properties it has are "heat". Introduce other qualities such as "cold" and you alter the air. It will contract. You have altered something that exists with the properties that it exhibits and what it doesn't exhibit (propertiesobtained from something else perhaps).

Is a perfectly fine explanation. It doesn't just describe "Air", it explains how it works in reality. How it relates to other things. That is an explanation.

>There is nothing you can say that will make these experiments go away.
I know that, you can't tell someone to not have a psychosis.
>make false premise hypothesis
>test absence
>get absent date/conclusions
Seems like a huge waste of time and money to chase shadows

>>10770904

>>10770904
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4xYacTu-E

>>10773783
Wow, can I have a source on who wrote that? Very poetic.

>>10773646
>That's because it's an actual thing to be different you idiot.
Then this entire line of discussion was pointless, you insufferable retard

>hurr it has to have properties like temperature to be real
>OK here are properties like temperature
>nuh uh it has to be real like temperature
It's as real as temperature.

>Space is only "different" when you talk about the shit that it actually is (a medium).
If you replace the word "space" with "air" you get an equally (in)coherent sentence, because you're a mentally ill hypocrite spouting nonsense.

>Because energy is neither created nor destroyed?
Answer the question asshat. How does energy having to be moved from somewhere else matter vis a vis the fact that energy causes spacetime to curve? I bet this question will never be answered because there is no logic behind your responses, just words strung together.

>Also it's the "bending and "curving" that causes "energy" to be moved, you don't just "place" it willy nilly.
And? Spacetime grips mass, telling it how to move. Mass grips spacetime, telling it how to curve.

>The way you phrased it "energy" is just this whole other animal that you just insert into space. That's where I got confused.
You got confused by assumptions your added to what I said.

>What? They explain themselves? Things explain themselves?
Read it again, moron.

>Not science.
Yes, which is why your attempt to employ it in physics has failed.

>Is a perfectly fine explanation. It doesn't just describe "Air", it explains how it works in reality. How it relates to other things. That is an explanation.
So you agree that my description is an explanation. Glad we cleared that up.

>make false premise hypothesis
What is the false premise?

>test absence
So light is an absence?

>I know that, you can't tell someone to not have a psychosis.
Hmmm who has the psychosis, the physicists practicing science or the lone guy on 4chan who has not a shred of evidence for his substance-free claims...

>>10773882

>Then this entire line of discussion was pointless, you insufferable retard
Couldn't have said better myself. "Space" is "not a specific thing" you can point to that has properties. "It is not a specific thing" doesn't translate to "it is something", It doesn't exist, it's the steadfast of the medium reacting upon itself, there's no "space" whatsoever. You can point to "air" as a "specific thing" because you can compare it to something else and see the difference. How do you do this with "Space"? It's an incommensurately medium, it is "filled" , there is no "space" anywhere!

>It's as real as temperature.
a measurement of the qualities "hot" and "cold". So you're right, since it's a measurement it also doesn't exist. "Hot" and "cold" still do because they're at least empirical and can be "felt".

>If you replace the word "space" with "air" you get an equally (in)coherent sentence, because you're a mentally ill hypocrite spouting nonsense.
Okay, how about we just replace the word "space" with "filled" since "filled" is a better description. Or we can just use "space" because that's the common word used for "the atmosphere past earths", and admit that it's not to be taken "as something specific" or "emptiness". It's a medium of something NOT SPECIFIC.

>Answer the question asshat. How does energy having to be moved from somewhere else matter vis a vis the fact that energy causes spacetime to curve? I bet this question will never be answered because there is no logic behind your responses, just words strung together.
I'm not answering a question that makes an assumption you idiot, you never provided (nor has anyone for that matter) one logical explanation as to how "time" and "space" are things to be "bent". They both literally do not exist, get it through your thick skull.

>So light is an absence?
"How much illumination"? Also we were talking about "spacetime". Time and space don't exist, therefore no experiment will prove them as "real"

>>10773933
>"Space" is "not a specific thing" you can point to that has properties.
I did though. First you demanded that space have properties like air, then when presented with those properties you cried that they weren't REAL without explaining how they are any less real than the properties of air.

>It doesn't exist
Repeating this over and over again is not an argument. Rejecting your own standard of proof means you lost the argument.

>You can point to "air" as a "specific thing" because you can compare it to something else and see the difference. How do you do this with "Space"?
The same way you measure temperature, with a metric: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe#Overview_of_metrics_and_comoving_coordinates

>it's the steadfast of the medium reacting upon itself
>It's an incommensurately medium
Cut the gibberish.

>there is no "space" anywhere!
LOL the idea of something being or not being somewhere already assumes space exists. What is "anywhere?"

>a measurement of the qualities "hot" and "cold". So you're right, since it's a measurement it also doesn't exist.
Utter nonsense. If you are measuring it, it exists.

>"Hot" and "cold" still do because they're at least empirical and can be "felt".
Oh look, yet another baseless standard that doesn't even help you. Space and time are empirical and can be "felt." I can't wait to see how you'll move the goalposts this time.

>Okay, how about we just replace the word "space" with "filled" since "filled" is a better description.
Sure, as soon as you replace all of your posts with "I'm denying basic concepts of physics in order to pretend that I'm smart, even though the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of my claims makes me seem not only unintelligent but also mentally ill" since that is a better description of what they contain.

>I'm not answering a question that makes an assumption you idiot
That's fine, then you admit your objection that energy is concerved has no relevance.

>>10773933
>>you never provided (nor has anyone for that matter) one logical explanation as to how "time" and "space" are things to be "bent".
The question is irrelevant. Regardless of why the laws of physics are the way they are, they are still observed to be the way they are.

>Also we were talking about "spacetime". Time and space don't exist, therefore no experiment will prove them as "real"
Time and space do exist and this has been proven in countless experiments testing the predictions of general relativity. Good job denying reality based on a false premise.

>>10773359
cuckra

>>10774640
>I did though.
"Density and curvature" are indeed properties but you failed to explain how space has them. Then you say "it depends where/when you are" yet you never explained what it actually is. A gumball for instance is something that actually has the properties to described. "Space" is what? Not a thing that's what, which is why it can't be dense or have any curvature. Tell me what the fuck space, or are you just referring back to what "special relativity says" about "spacetime"? They can say whatever the fuck they want and they can "prove" whatever the fuck they want when it comes to something that was imagined up in the first place. You still can't point to me "space" or "time" because they don't exist.

>Repeating this over and over again is not an argument.
Which is why I keep asking you to give me a property both "Space" and "time" have. Preferably by explaining how they have a basis in reality so that we can avoid a repeat of above.

>Cut the gibberish.
"incommensurable" before autocorrect came in.

Tell me how to measure a disparity. You can't, it's always CHANGING. Immeasurable. It's like asking "how much pressure can you put in a bottle that can contain an indeterminable amount of pressure".

>LOL the idea of something being or not being somewhere already assumes space exists.
You claim yet again that an absence is something. This is the problem we're having here. This is where the confusion is. It is ABSENT. INDETERMINABLE. Yet you keep calling it "something else" in it's place and that is where you fall short. "Space" as if "oh yeah it's now empty and waiting for something". No. It is ABSENT. Not determinable. Not "something for you to make up".

>Space and time are empirical and can be "felt." I can't wait to see how you'll move the goalposts this time
>"I can feel measurements"
Tell me how they can be felt and I guarantee you it will end up being another actual empirical phenomena causing it.

>>10774659
>The question is irrelevant.
>it is irrelevant to know what time or space actually is or whether it exists

Which is why you're gonna be stuck in a circle trying to prove things with fairies and unicorns.

>Regardless of why the laws of physics are the way they are, they are still observed to be the way they are.

Enjoy "your blind men and an elephant"' roleplay.


>Time and space do exist and this has been proven in countless experiments testing the predictions of general relativity.
>testing the predictions of general relativity.
Translates to
>testing the assumptions of general relativity
Which again assumes that "Space" and "time" are real. So yes, "time and space" exist because they were assumed to be so and the foundation was built upon this lunacy. They're real because refrigerator mechanic flunky said so

>Good job denying reality based on a false premise.
If scientists actually understood reality then they wouldn't be scientists. Saying that I "deny reality"...like you're the omnipotence of it or something?

>>10770904
haha true

The simulation our universes is in was simply programmed using a variable-step solver that results in local time dilation in regions close to large amounts of mass because of the increased complexity of the necessary computations.

>>10773880
Gravity's Rainbow

>>10774749
>"Density and curvature" are indeed properties but you failed to explain how space has them.
What do you mean by "how space has them?" Do you mean how do we know space has them? By measuring it.

>Then you say "it depends where/when you are" yet you never explained what it actually is.
What what actually is? "It" in that sentence refers to density and curvature.

>A gumball for instance is something that actually has the properties to described.
Space actually has the properties described.

>Not a thing that's what, which is why it can't be dense or have any curvature.
Hmmmm... should I accept this baseless assertion that you seem to think is proven by constant repetition? Or should I accept physics based on actual observation of the universe and on testing the predictions of models? What a tough decision...

>They can say whatever the fuck they want and they can "prove" whatever the fuck they want when it comes to something that was imagined up in the first place.
So basically you will just ignore all empirical evidence because you decided from the beginning that you're right. This means you automatically lose the argument. Thanks for admitting defeat.

>You still can't point to me "space" or "time" because they don't exist.
>point to
You are such a delusional retard that you don't even realize that pointing to something requires space to exist in the first place.

>Which is why I keep asking you to give me a property both "Space" and "time" have.
I did already. Density and curvature. Pretending that I didn't give you an answer I clearly gave you does not help you, it just makes you look even more mentally ill.

>Preferably by explaining how they have a basis in reality so that we can avoid a repeat of above.
I did already. See the wikipedia article in >>10774640

>"incommensurable" before autocorrect came in.
The grammatical errors are not what makes it gibberish.

>Tell me how to measure a disparity.
The same way you measure anything else.

>>10774749
>You can't, it's always CHANGING. Immeasurable.
That doesn't follow.

>It's like asking "how much pressure can you put in a bottle that can contain an indeterminable amount of pressure".
It's not.

>You claim yet again that an absence is something.
I didn't claim that, it's just garbage semantics you made up. This is is what you do whenever you have to confront your own idiocy, you hide behind word salad and irrelevant semantics. You're seriously mentally ill.

>Tell me how they can be felt
You feel the passage of time and you feel the distance between you and other things. This does not require an explanation, it's simply what you and every other human experiences. What does require explanation is why you feel the need to lie to yourself about this. Is it because it makes you feel special?

>>10770904
They say it's a force weaker than magnatism. But when I look upon a stary night and twirl. They stay in formation, not fly apart with the incredible rotational velocodencity forces applied.
So I think Newtons a shit that cant fathom how Apples work.

>>10774783
>>it is irrelevant to know what time or space actually is or whether it exists
We don't know what anything "actually is," doesn't mean we don't know they exist. If you want to argue the opposite, go ahead. It will just lead you to solipsism and irrelevance.

>Enjoy "your blind men and an elephant"' roleplay.
Enjoy your mental illness.

>testing the assumptions of general relativity
You should try testing your assumptions instead of just repeating them ad nauseam.

>So yes, "time and space" exist because they were assumed to be so and the foundation was built upon this lunacy.
If you test an assumption and it passes, it's not an assumption anymore.

>If scientists actually understood reality then they wouldn't be scientists. Saying that I "deny reality"...like you're the omnipotence of it or something?
Reality includes empirically observable facts, which you are in denial of.

>>10770904
When you integrate a voxel of high density electrical charges the resulting magnetic field flux becomes a monopole so that the curl of that vector points inwards and as a result it starts attracting all matter instead of just charged ions. You are welcome

>>10775343
>When you integrate a voxel of high density electrical charges the resulting magnetic field flux becomes a monopole so that the curl of that vector points inwards and as a result it starts attracting all matter instead of just charged ions.

>>10770904
literally just the effect of matter existing in spacetime resulting in a dump of spacetime

just like matter in an ocean pulls water towards itself when submerged except space is so big this thing takes billions of years to start and stop

>>10771131
>Do not equate something with properties to something that doesn't and completely made up.
What properties does your ether possess, then?
>But time has no properties...
Regardless, do you deny that the concept of time has a use in describing the way that the universe seems to function and building a framework of knowledge that attempts to allow us to understand why it functions as it does?

>>10771195
>You have an assumption with no empirical evidence whatsoever.
How would that be any different than an ether?

>>10771268
This guy has been peddling this useless idea on this board for years. He says the same shit over and over again, only reading the replies closely enough to shuffle his talking points around for a "rebuttal". There's no sense even conversing with him. He's not really reading anything that you type.

>>10771288
>an "action" at specific intervals
What do you mean "specific intervals"? Time isn't a thing, remember?

>>10771302
>Saying "time exists" is like saying "a meter exists", a meter OF WHAT? The "Of what" being the actual phenomena and "time" being the measurement using in the language of mathematics.
Fucksake. I've seen you post this exact statement probably a hundred times. Do you just have some kind of manifesto you constantly copy/paste from? At this point, you might as well just set up a spambot for all the unique input you provide on this topic.

>>10772102
>>all objects have the same density
>>all objects have the same area
>>"drops" hydrogen
>>"drops" smoke
>>"drops" apple to have it grow up into an apple tree and the other matter evaporate into the atmosphere.
You are the most pedantic dumbass that I've ever seen. Pedantry can indicate at least a modicum of knowledge of a subject, but in your case it's just all about feeling superior. You're a narcissist that only thinks that he has an argument because he's constantly staring at his own asshole lovingly in the mirror.

>>10772207
>That doesn't mean anything other than what you want it to mean.
It dictates how intensely particles/energy will interact. What concept do you use in place of distance? It would have to effectively be the same thing regardless of what you want to call it.

>>10773646
>>The air is matter and the properties it has are "heat". Introduce other qualities such as "cold" and you alter the air. It will contract.
The medium through which matter/energy react is spacetime and a property that it has is curvature. Introduce other qualities such as a greater curvature (through whatever means are necessary to do so) and you alter the way that matter/energy react in that given area of spacetime.

In other words, you have no argument, and you have no clue what you're even talking about.

>>10776853
>stopping and starting an action is time
Za Warudo

>>10776834
>What properties does your ether possess, then?
The cause of properties is not a property.

>Regardless, do you deny that the concept of time has a use in describing the way that the universe seems to function and building a framework of knowledge that attempts to allow us to understand why it functions as it does?

"A" way it functions but not "the" way. To understand "why" it functions the way it does is more of a philosophical question.

>>10777547
>Fucksake. I've seen you post this exact statement probably a hundred times.

Because it's so simple to understand once you provide a comparison. Also it doesn't get through the thick skulls of people that actually believe its real. It is literally a measurement of something that is real.

Technically "time" isn't even that. It's a measurement of the actions of something that is real...something that doesn't even have a "concreteness" to it. Telling me two balls rotate around each other at a specific speed over a period of this arbitrary measurement of an action doesn't tell me jack shit about what the "balls" are or why they're rotating. All it does is describe to me just that. 2 balls rotating around each other, only now we've included this arbitrary standard of measure. You're still describing it. You haven't told me why they're rotating or why they exist or even if they exist.

It's useful for reproducing and recording though. That is what measurements are for.

>>10777565
>drops a magnetic field in "empty not a medium" "space"

>>10776845
>this one singular guy, trust me I would know on an anonymous image board.

Racist

>>10777633

>>10773933
>You can point to "air" as a "specific thing" because you can compare it to something else and see the difference.
You can easily compare two different areas of spacetime and see differences between them.>>10773933
>a measurement of the qualities "hot" and "cold". So you're right, since it's a measurement it also doesn't exist. "Hot" and "cold" still do because they're at least empirical and can be "felt".
Amazing that you can be so pedantic about such useless shit and yet still believe that "cold" is an actual property of anything. Further indication that you're too busy making kissy-faces at your own asshole to actually think critically about your own ideas.
>Okay, how about we just replace the word "space" with "filled" since "filled" is a better description.
So this literally is just about semantics to you? I figured you at least thought that you had some better description of spacetime as a facet of the universe (even though you'd undoubtedly be incorrect), but I shouldn't have even given you that much credit. No, you just can't wrap your head around two different concepts (space as in "spacetime" vs. space as in "empty space") sharing a common name. You can call spacetime fliggetyflark-woppendoodle for all anyone gives a fuck. The name means nothing on its own.
>Time and space don't exist, therefore no experiment will prove them as "real"
You talk mad game about how much of a scientist you are and then you go and draw what is, in your mind alone, an immutable conclusion before you even do any form of experiment. Absolutely pathetic.

>>10774749
>explain how space has them
Explain how we know that air has the property of temperature and you will have also explained how we know that space has the property of density and curvature. It's incredible that you are incapable of comprehending this parallel.
>Not a thing that's what, which is why it can't be dense or have any curvature.
Clear-cut tautology.
>they can "prove" whatever the fuck they want when it comes to something that was imagined up in the first place
They can only prove anything if the real-world data lines up with the predictions. And they do, dumb-dumb. They have over and over and over again for decades. Have you been living under a fucking rock, or are you just too far up your own ass to pay attention to any physics journals?
>Preferably by explaining how they have a basis in reality so that we can avoid a repeat of above.
No amount of explanation matters when you've got your fingers shoved so far into each ear that they're touching in the middle of your empty head.
>Tell me how to measure a disparity. You can't, it's always CHANGING.
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you completely and utterly failed any and all calculus classes you've ever taken.
>You claim yet again that an absence is something.
You claim yet again that spacetime is some form of absence. Where did you get this idea?
>Tell me how they can be felt and I guarantee you it will end up being another actual empirical phenomena causing it.
So, in your mind, a phenomenon is only empirical if you can physically feel it with human senses? Do you honestly believe that our evolutionarily-created senses are the end all be all of measurement tools? Why have so many people wasted so much time building devices that do anything other than what our senses already do, then?

>>10774783
>>testing the assumptions of general relativity
If those "assumptions" were incorrect, then why do the equations line up so well with what we observe in reality? Building your foundations upon falsehoods wouldn't just magically spit out an accurate rendering of the universe.
>They're real because refrigerator mechanic flunky said so
If you're so much superior than some of the greatest scientists of all time, then why are you sitting here on /sci/ and not writing your UTOE? You've clearly got it all figured out. Prove us all wrong and empirically show what space and time REALLY are. Don't worry; you've totally got this.

>>10774749
>You still can't point to me "space" or "time" because they don't exist.
You can point literally anywhere, literally anywhen, and you're pointing at both space and time.

>>10775198
Does that hot mess sound poetic in your head? Do you lack the self-awareness and social know-how to understand that everyone just sees that as gibberish, and rightly so?

>>10777628
>>stopping and starting an action is time
How would you even determine whether or not you started or stopped an action without the arrow of causality?
>"A" way it functions but not "the" way. To understand "why" it functions the way it does is more of a philosophical question.
You know what I was saying, pedant. What would you replace the concept of time with? You freely admit that it, at the very least, describes "a" way that the universe works. In what way, then, does it not exist at all?
>Because it's so simple to understand once you provide a comparison.
At this point, you have to accept that either you are not explaining your concept well, that everyone except for you is somehow too stupid to understand it, or that it's complete horseshit. I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is. (Hint, hint: You aren't the smartest person on the planet, narcissist.)
>something that doesn't even have a "concreteness" to it
Just because you can't perceive the concept "concretely" in your mind doesn't mean that it isn't concrete. All it means is that you aren't understanding some part of it.
>doesn't tell me jack shit about what the "balls" are
So? There are other metrics for describing the other properties of the balls.
>or why they're rotating
You're literally contradicting yourself within a single post. Understanding "why" it functions the way it does is more of a philosophical question, remember?
>now we've included this arbitrary standard of measure.
There are many forces that affect the two balls differently depending on "this arbitrary standard of measure". Do you know the definition of arbitrary?
>You haven't told me why they're rotating or why they exist or even if they exist.
Why should the idea of time have to describe all of this on its own?
>>drops a magnetic field in "empty not a medium" "space"
You're dipping a little far into the schizophrenia there, skippy. You just can't seem to understand the "space" and "empty" are not always synonymous.

>>10777612
>The medium through which matter/energy react is spacetime

wtf? A medium? So it's the aether then, you just renamed it to "spacetime". The problem is you never explained how time is real or how "Space" has properties.

>>10777579
>What concept do you use in place of distance?
What the interaction is between where you want to go. That's the only cause of the illusion of "distance". If earth had the same mass but were compacted more densely then the distance decreases.

>>10777647
>still doesn't tell me how time is real and insists on referring to a filled medium as "spacetime".

Away with you. Also ice is indeed cold. It has the properties of coldness. Moron.

>>10777673

>Explain how we know that air has the property of temperature and you will have also explained how we know that space has the property of density and curvature

Because we measured/observed a change in their quality by introducing another one. So "space" is a medium, "filled space".

>You claim yet again that spacetime is some form of absence. Where did you get this idea?
How else is it

>So, in your mind, a phenomenon is only empirical if you can physically feel it with human senses?
Not necessarily , I was responding to how "time and space" can be felt. Measurements cannot be felt since they're concepts.
Do you honestly believe that our evolutionarily-created senses are the end all be all of measurement tools?
Given that we ourselves are a phenomena, yeah. We're at least a good receiver.
>Why have so many people wasted so much time building devices that do anything other than what our senses already do, then?
All it does is the same thing but "better". It's still interpreted by humans.

>>10777685
>why do the equations line up so well with what we observe in reality?
Because the equations set the standard of measure we arbitrate in reality...

>empirically show what space and time REALLY are
>he said to the guy saying they're not real and asking for proof they are real.

>>10777695
How does one point to a measurement? Do I point to a clock or something? A clock is made of a battery and gears though.

>>10777734
>How would you even determine whether or not you started or stopped an action without the arrow of causality?
Well son, isn't that the joke?
>How would one reify an absence of action
You don't.

>What would you replace the concept of time with?
Self-similar mutual impellment. There cannot logically be a start or end to the universe because there is "always something". So the concept of time becomes meaningless, there is no "timeline".

>So? There are other metrics for describing the other properties of the balls.
Exactly. All they do is describe. Big deal.

>Understanding "why" it functions the way it does is more of a philosophical question, remember?
That's the point, yes. Measurements cannot explain shit.

>Why should the idea of time have to describe all of this on its own?
Time IS a description. Measurements are descriptions. That is the point remember? Time isn't real afterall, a concept. It doesn't control anything.

>You just can't seem to understand the "space" and "empty" are not always synonymous.
So no one actually knows what they mean when they use the term "space" then? That really convinces me that it's real.

>>10777744
>So it's the aether then
What differentiates the concept of ether and that of a basic medium through which energy/mass interact is that you could "capture" an ether or drain it completely from one place into another. You cannot do this with spacetime, and so the concepts are distinct. That is not to say that I'm surprised that you are yet again incapable of distinguishing two things from one another simply because they are slightly similar.
>The problem is you never explained how time is real or how "Space" has properties.
No, the problem is that multiple people have explained this to you multiple times, and you refuse to listen. You've made a baseless, contrarian assumption because it makes you feel superior to others. That is not science.
>What the interaction is between where you want to go.
Congratulations, you understand! You've just described what distance is. I'm proud of you.
>If earth had the same mass but were compacted more densely then the distance decreases.
I'm so glad to see that you're finally admitting that distance exists by stating that it can decrease.
>Away with you.
Okay, cringelord.
>Also ice is indeed cold.
Only in the sense that it is not as warm as other things. It does not possess some magical "cold" energy. Unlike space and time, that actually doesn't exist.
>Because we measured/observed a change in their quality by introducing another one.
Another what? Property? We have measured and observed a change in the quality of spacetime many, many times by describing with our equations the differing levels of curvature and density required in different areas to produce certain effects and then verifying those results with reality. Why do you deny that this has been done when so many groups have done so many times?
>So "space" is a medium, "filled space".
Once again, the word "space" in "spacetime" is not synonymous with the way "space" is used in common speech. Are you literally incapable of understanding that?

>>10777744
>How else is it
Do you have no understanding at all of what physicists mean when they say spacetime? Show me one single instance of an accredited physicist stating that spacetime is an absence of something.
>Measurements cannot be felt since they're concepts.
You feel the measurement of temperature as heat or cold. You feel the measurement of acceleration as the g-force. You can feel the measurements of all sorts of things, regardless of whether or not you see them as "concepts".
>Given that we ourselves are a phenomena, yeah. We're at least a good receiver.
And yet our senses were only gifted to us through natural selection to help us survive on this planet, not to help us understand the universe as a whole. You cannot expect to sense all useful information with just your eyes, ears, etc. There are plenty of properties of the universe that we cannot sense, yet we know exist through our scientific and mathematical efforts.
>All it does is the same thing but "better". It's still interpreted by humans.
Are you seriously claiming that there are no tools that provide us with information that our senses can't perceive on their own?
>Because the equations set the standard of measure we arbitrate in reality...
Then it would be an insane stroke of coincidence that all of the math still works out to what we see in reality. If a theory has true predictive power, then it's as real as real gets.
>>he said to the guy saying they're not real and asking for proof they are real.
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I'm asking you to show, empirically, why there is this "illusion" of spacetime that provides us with an incredibly accurate view of the universe and yet somehow doesn't exist.

>>10777800
>How does one point to a measurement? Do I point to a clock or something? A clock is made of a battery and gears though.
The fuck are you even talking about at this point? Spacetime exists at all points. Thus, whenever you indicate any area of the universe. you are indicating spacetime itself.
>Well son, isn't that the joke?
Not a response.
>reify (again)
You are a joke. Thumb through a thesaurus at some point.
>Self-similar mutual impellment
More schizo gibberish. Show how this "self-similar mutual impellment" works mathematically. Make a prediction using the formulae that you've created, verify it with an experiment, and then get back with me. Until you do that, you're just talking out of your ass and shouldn't expect anyone to just take you at your word.
>There cannot logically be a start or end to the universe because there is "always something".
At this point, that assertion is mere philosophy. We don't have the data to prove one way or the other that there is "always something".
>So the concept of time becomes meaningless, there is no "timeline".
Even with infinite time, some things happen before others in certain sections of the timeline. You literally admitted earlier that time is a good way of describing one way in which the universe works and here you are backpedaling again.

>>10777800
>Exactly. All they do is describe. Big deal.
You can go ahead and walk through life not caring about the description of anything, then. The rest of us will do actual science and attempt to describe the universe in which we live.
>Measurements cannot explain shit.
No, you just have some fucked up definition of "explain". Given the way normal people use the term, measurements explain plenty.
>Time IS a description.
So?
>Time isn't real afterall, a concept. It doesn't control anything.
You assert and assert and assert, yet you never prove a single thing. If you're going to assert that time isn't real without any evidence, we can all assert that it is with just as much.
>So no one actually knows what they mean when they use the term "space" then?
Non-schizos can understand that the word "space" can have two different meanings given two different contexts. If you say, "Hey, move the couch into that space over there", you're using "space" in a way that means "empty area". If you say, "Hey, look at the way the spacetime in that area of our galaxy is warped; we can learn something from that", then you're using "space" in the context of the scientific term "spacetime". I actually think you're missing some part of your brain that would allow you to understand this parallel.
>That really convinces me that it's real.
Your incredulity is derived from your own lack of understanding, not others'.

>>10777808

>Congratulations, you understand! You've just described what distance is. I'm proud of you.
No, it's the interaction that is measured and put in terms of quantification. You're equating the interaction to distance itself. What is between the points is not actually fucking "distance" it's a gradient difference in interaction. It doesn't matter what the fucking distance actually is, it's the type of interaction that's causing the illusion of what you call "distance".
> I'm so glad to see that you're finally admitting that distance exists by stating that it can decrease.
The means of which it does so is not "distance" though, it's density. Distance means nothing even though it's "measured", it "exists as a concept" but it doesn't have a basis in reality.>many times by describing with our equations the differing levels of curvature and density required in different areas to produce certain effects and then verifying those results with reality.
>>10777832
>>10777808
>>10777833

>"density of what"
>spacetime
>time not being something that is dense or curved
>space anything but a medium that changes density and shape
>All thrown together with the assumption that light actually has a speed

It never ends this shit. You people are living in a psychosis which is why you keep inventing a new particle everytime you hit a bump in the road.

>>10777818
>You feel the measurements
No I feel qualities, which are most certainly not quantities. Neither is a change in quality.

>>10777833
>You can go ahead and walk through life not caring about the description of anything, then.
Which is what I will do. Bums can give a description of something, someone with wisdom can explain it in detail.

>measurements explain plenty.
Except for the cause of a field, time, space and gravity. Also can't explain why an apple tastes different than an orange.

>If you're going to assert that time isn't real without any evidence
No proof it exists as something. It's as real as unicorns.

>>10778058
>What is between the points is not actually fucking "distance" it's a gradient difference in interaction.
That's just what distance is. You're just stating it in a different way. This is the most ridiculous semantic argument I've ever seen. Regardless of whether you want to define it in your way or the classical version, the formulae are the same in the end. It makes literally no difference.
>it "exists as a concept" but it doesn't have a basis in reality
It exists as a concept BECAUSE it has a basis in reality. If it didn't, the concept would be useless and would never have lasted memetically in human culture, and it for god damn sure wouldn't have been selected for intuitive understanding in, at the very least, the human mind, evolutionarily.
>>time not being something that is dense or curved
Time can be both dense and curved. Just out of curiosity, what's the highest level of physics that you've mastered?
>>space anything but a medium that changes density and shape
You're parroting your classic strawmen when I've already addressed both of those points.
>>All thrown together with the assumption that light actually has a speed
And why would you believe that light has no speed? I'm starting to think that you're just a pathological contrarian. You automatically pick the contrarian side of every concept and then try to build your argument backwards.
>You people are living in a psychosis
Legitimately impressive display of projection.
>you keep inventing a new particle everytime you hit a bump in the road
You mean like how every scientific field revises its theories when provided new data? Are you suggesting that scientific fields should not do this?

>>10778058
>No I feel qualities
Okay, King Semantic. Measurements are just qualities translated into a different "language". It still means the same thing just as both Hello and Hola do.
>Which is what I will do.
Then you're clearly not involved in any scientific field, which explains a lot about your views.
>Bums can give a description of something, someone with wisdom can explain it in detail.
Do you seriously not see how you're just mired in pointless semantics? Giving a description of something generally involves explaining it in detail. You just came up with the idea that describing something means less detail than explaining it because you lacked a legitimate argument.
>Except for the cause of a field, time, space and gravity.
Just because we haven't figured out how to take the right measurements yet does not mean that those potential measurements do not exist. Why do you make so many assumptions?
>Also can't explain why an apple tastes different than an orange.
Literally what? They taste different because they are composed of different things/the same things in different arrangements. Were you seriously mystified as to why different food doesn't all taste the same?
>No proof it exists as something.
You know, other than every single thing you experience every single day.

>>10770904
a word used to for a phenomena that occurs

>>10778144
That's just what distance is.
Distance is not difference, it's a measurement of a difference.

> Regardless of whether you want to define it in your way or the classical version, the formulae are the same in the end. It makes literally no difference.
No it doesn't, because it doesn't pertain to reality. Distance doesn't control anything, phenomena are what control the illusion of distance. If I set a bomb off and then measure the magnitude of effects is that measurement a cause to the effects? No it's a fucking measurement. You're using the measurement known as "distance" and setting two or more arbitrary points as close as possible to what you observed. The materials used to make the fucking bomb and the medium you set it off in caused the effects.

It exists as a concept BECAUSE it has a basis in reality
"planes had a basis in reality before they were invented"
It doesn't make sense.

>Time can be both dense and curved
No it can't because it's a measurement. You're saying a concept is something measurable. It has no properties.

>You're parroting your classic strawmen when I've already addressed both of those points.
By continuing to call it "spacetime" even though neither can exist.

>And why would you believe that light has no speed?
Because it's an induced electromagnetic phenomena that's dependent on the medium it travels through.

>You mean like how every scientific field revises its theories when provided new data?
>Yet dumb shits still believe in GR even though light was proven not to have aconstant speed and the foundation of it depends on this fact.

>>10778145
>Measurements are just qualities
Measurements have no qualities. They can't "be" anything. They're a concept you dip.

>Literally what? They taste different because they are composed of different things/the same things in different arrangements.
>So once again it's geomancy now

You just can't make up your mind can you?

>>10778196
>Distance is not difference, it's a measurement of a difference.
More pointless semantics.
>No it doesn't, because it doesn't pertain to reality.
Why do you think that repeating that over and over again magically makes it true?
>If I set a bomb off and then measure the magnitude of effects is that measurement a cause to the effects?
Who are you even arguing with at this point? Nobody is saying that distance sets of the bomb. Distance just describes how the bomb affects its surroundings. There's nothing arbitrary about that.
>"planes had a basis in reality before they were invented"
The absolute definition of a false equivalence. You clearly did not understand what I was saying. The very fact that the idea of distance is intuitive to all humans shows that natural selection favored that trait. Natural selection doesn't just do that for no reason, bud. The concept is incredibly useful, and it is so for a reason.

>>10778196
>No it can't because it's a measurement.
You can call it that if you want. If you call it that, you then have to understand that "time" is now measuring the aspect of spacetime that describes how the universe always progresses towards entropy. You're absolutely obsessed with trying to split the tiniest of semantic hairs, evidenced by the fact that you've been doing this shit for months, if not years now. The progression of the universe towards maximum entropy can be curved and more or less dense in some areas compared to others. Normal people call this progression "time" because it's a lot fucking shorter to type, but you have to be a pedant so here you go. The progression of the universe towards maximum entropy empirically exists as evidenced by probably tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. You can't debate that, and so you can't debate that time, in the way that I've described it (which is the way any physicist would describe it if pressed in this ludicrous fashion), exists and measurements can be made concerning its density and curvature. You, for whatever reason, want to call the measurement itself time, and that's literally the only thing that your entire argument hinges upon. Take this shit to /lit/, because it has way more to do with language than with science.

>>10778196
>By continuing to call it "spacetime" even though neither can exist
The name literally has no effect on whether or not the actual thing exists. If you want to argue about the name of something, take it off /sci/.
>Because it's an induced electromagnetic phenomena that's dependent on the medium it travels through.
There is still no possible physical circumstance that would result in a photon have no speed value whatsoever. Some speed value would always occur, regardless of what's causing it.
>Yet dumb shits still believe in GR even though light was proven not to have aconstant speed and the foundation of it depends on this fact
GR only requires light to have a constant speed through the vacuum of space, which it does. What leads you to believe that optics invalidates GR?
>Measurements have no qualities.
You're right. I didn't say that they did. I said that they are the same thing, not that one has the other. They are translations of one another, each useful in its own applications.
>They're a concept you dip.
What the fuck even is your definition of concept? Why do you have these personal definitions of words that literally nobody else uses yet you expect everyone to automatically adhere to them?
>>So once again it's geomancy now
What do you mean by geomancy? Is that what you call chemistry? Because that's virtually all that determines what food tastes like.

THIS IS FUCKING GRAVITY THAT A SIMPLE 12 YEAR OLD CAN UNDERSTAND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KooPsEE7E-Q&list=PLTS_rb-IeqO42J-_tdbC1b7i0uMPt4JR5&index=7&t=0s

>>10778293
More pointless semantics.
NO IT ISN'T. "Distance" is a fucking measurement by definition. It has "meaning" when it comes to quantifying.

>Why do you think that repeating that over and over again magically makes it true?
Why do you think measuring something causes something to happen? It's the shit that's measured that causes shit to happen.

>The absolute definition of a false equivalence.
No it's not because you claimed an idea is real. I could list off a number of things such as "fairies" and "unicorns" to fit in its place, as long as it's an idea it's just "real" right?

>The very fact that the idea of distance is intuitive to all humans shows that natural selection favored that trait. Natural selection doesn't just do that for no reason, bud. The concept is incredibly useful, and it is so for a reason.
That doesn't make distance real though.

>>10778296
>The progression of the universe towards maximum entropy empirically exists as evidenced by probably tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies. You can't debate that

>"The universe will end for no logical reason because a circle jerk study of people agreeing with each other said so".
>Nothing exists
>the progression to nothingness exists
So just kill yourself now.

>>10778301
>The name literally has no effect on whether or not the actual thing exists. If you want to argue about the name of something, take it off /sci/.
So what the fuck is space and time then?

>There is still no possible physical circumstance that would result in a photon have no speed value whatsoever. Some speed value would always occur, regardless of what's causing it.

No shit.

>measure light when it's not moving
>it ceases to exist
>because it's not a thing it's what something else is doing, an action

And they call this a "wave-particle duality".

>GR only requires light to have a constant speed through the vacuum of space, which it does. What leads you to believe that optics invalidates GR?

What lead you to believe that "space" is a complete "vacuum"? It has you and planets and all sorts of shit in it. "Filled space".

>You're right. I didn't say that they did. I said that they are the same thing, not that one has the other. They are translations of one another, each useful in its own applications.
But they aren't. One will continue to "exist" without the human brain, because the other is a complete imaginary idea of the human brain.

>What the fuck even is your definition of concept?
An idea, not manifest, not in reality, not empirical.

>What do you mean by geomancy?
Magic. Full metal alchemist bullshit. Feng Shui. Arrangement of materials. Literally no difference from how it's being described to me.

>>10778416
>"Distance" is a fucking measurement by definition.
You keep oscillating between saying this and that distance doesn't exist at all. Are you sure you've made up your mind?
>Why do you think measuring something causes something to happen?
Literally nobody is saying that. You keep trying to change the conversation.
>No it's not because you claimed an idea is real.
Nope. I stated the fact that the concept of distance is intuitive to the human species. I then drew the conclusion that this is so for a reason, as natural selection wouldn't program such a complex trait for shits and giggles. The fact that the concept of distance is positive to survival highly suggests that it is based on a real thing. Whether or not you want to call that real thing distance doesn't matter. It functions in the same way. I don't even know why I'm typing this out, though, because you won't address the argument; you'll just restate one of your catchphrases.
>That doesn't make distance real though.
I love that your form of debate consists solely of stating your belief. Back this statement up or it's useless. You've got your fingers in your ears, and you know it.
>>"The universe will end for no logical reason because a circle jerk study of people agreeing with each other said so".
Yeah, based on all of the empirical data that we've gathered on the topic as a species. Everything that we know for sure points towards this, yet you seem to think that you have some greater knowledge than literally any other human being that exists or has ever existed. Your narcissism is incredible. I'm sure you'll take that as a compliment, though.
>>Nothing exists
Nobody ever said that.
>>the progression to nothingness exists
Nobody ever said that, either.
>So just kill yourself now.
The edgelord strikes again. You got me.

>>10778444
>So what the fuck is space and time then?
Literally read any textbook on the topic. Multiple people have explained this to you multiple times in this thread, and I'm sure countless more times in all of the other threads you've shat up all this time. Maybe you just need to learn it on your own, if that's even possible for you, seeing as how you've made up your mind in the most extreme way possible based off literally zero empirical data.
>>it ceases to exist
No, it doesn't. I knew you didn't understand a whole lot about physics, but I figured you at least knew the first law of thermodynamics. The photon changes into a different form of energy.
>What lead you to believe that "space" is a complete "vacuum"?
Would you stop strawmanning? Literally where did I say that all space is a complete vacuum? I said in THE vacuum of space, as in, in parts of space that is a pure vacuum, light will have a constant speed. You're either trolling or you have the worst reading comprehension that I've ever witnessed on this site.
>"Filled space"
You really like your catchphrases, don't you? What is this one supposed to represent? You lack of ability to understand that the word "space" in spacetime doesn't mean what you think it does?
>One will continue to "exist" without the human brain
Okay? As I said, they are translations of one another. What are you not understanding, here?
>not empirical
Then how is a measurement a concept when measurements are, by definition, empirical?
>Literally no difference from how it's being described to me.
You think chemistry is magic? What fucking year were you born in, caveman?

Ethereal Momentum

>>10770904

>>10778456
you keep oscillating between saying this and that distance doesn't exist at all.

Follow what I say maybe. Distance is a measurement and measurements are not things with a basis in reality. They are concepts, ideas. In this case it's describing reality. Descriptions are not actually reality. Get it through dude. Distance is *as real* as unicorns. It is an imaginary conjured up idea so yes AS AN IDEA IT IS "REAL" , BUT NOT ACTUALLY REAL IN THE REALITY YO"U AND I ARE IN.

>Literally nobody is saying that.
You or someone I replied to called it an "interaction". It is not, it causes nothing to happen.

>I don't even know why I'm typing this out

Me neither, it doesn't make a point about distance actually being real. This is why we concluded thousands of years ago that pure observation and empirical evidence aren't the solution to everything. It's an illusion of light interacting with other light on a surface that's spinning. Take away the spinning, the medium, and light and it's gonna be pretty fucking hard to conjure up the idea of "Distance".

>I love that your form of debate consists solely of stating your belief. Back this statement up or it's useless. You've got your fingers in your ears, and you know it.
And I've already told you like 5 times that it's "a concept", a measurement, not an actual thing. You're basically asking me to prove something exists when it doesn't. You may have well asked me to prove a shadow exists. "As real as unicorns" is the best explanation there is, sorry that upsets you so much.

>You lack of ability to understand that the word "space" in spacetime doesn't mean what you think it does?

It doesn't do anything that's the joke. It has no properties.

>Okay? As I said, they are translations of one another. What are you not understanding, here?
You said measurements and qualities are the same thing, which is a patently absurd and incorrect statement. I have nothing else to say.

>>10778456
>you keep oscillating between saying this and that distance doesn't exist at all.

Follow what I say maybe. Distance is a measurement and measurements are not things with a basis in reality. They are concepts, ideas. In this case it's describing reality. Descriptions are not actually reality. Get it through dude. Distance is *as real* as unicorns. It is an imaginary conjured up idea so yes AS AN IDEA IT IS "REAL" , BUT NOT ACTUALLY REAL IN THE REALITY YO"U AND I ARE IN.

>Literally nobody is saying that.
You or someone I replied to called it an "interaction". It is not, it causes nothing to happen.

>I don't even know why I'm typing this out

Me neither, it doesn't make a point about distance actually being real. This is why we concluded thousands of years ago that pure observation and empirical evidence aren't the solution to everything. It's an illusion of light interacting with other light on a surface that's spinning. Take away the spinning, the medium, and light and it's gonna be pretty fucking hard to conjure up the idea of "Distance".

>I love that your form of debate consists solely of stating your belief. Back this statement up or it's useless. You've got your fingers in your ears, and you know it.

And I've already told you like 5 times that it's "a concept", a measurement, not an actual thing. You're basically asking me to prove something exists when it doesn't. You may have well asked me to prove a shadow exists. "As real as unicorns" is the best explanation there is, sorry that upsets you so much.

>Yeah, based on all of the empirical data that we've gathered on the topic as a species. Everything that we know for sure points towards this, yet you seem to think that you have some greater knowledge than literally any other human being that exists or has ever existed. Your narcissism is incredible. I'm sure you'll take that as a compliment, though.
>All this knowledge yet no wisdom how to use it.

>>10779291
>Distance is a measurement
Wrong, measurement is how you find distance, that doesn't mean distance is a measurement. That's like saying an object is an image because you look at an object to determine what it is.

>>10778472
>Literally read any textbook on the topic. Multiple people have explained this to you multiple times in this thread, and I'm sure countless more times in all of the other threads you've shat up all this time. Maybe you just need to learn it on your own, if that's even possible for you, seeing as how you've made up your mind in the most extreme way possible based off literally zero empirical data.
"It's curved and has density" even though they're concepts and not empirical. Yeah you sure sound smart.

>No, it doesn't. I knew you didn't understand a whole lot about physics, but I figured you at least knew the first law of thermodynamics. The photon changes into a different form of energy.
>yes they're totally discrete except when you measure them at the most discrete level, then they magically dissapear/ "get absorbed ".
Of course, because light is what something does.

>You really like your catchphrases, don't you? What is this one supposed to represent?
It's a medium that has absolutely nothing to do with "distance" not "time".

>Okay? As I said, they are translations of one another. What are you not understanding, here?
You said "measurements are qualities" which is an absurd and incorrect statement given that measurements have no qualities.

>Then how is a measurement a concept when measurements are, by definition, empirical?
What you're measuring is "empirical" not the ideas you use to measure with.
>but a meter stick is empirical
The stick is, but the divisions mean nothing. You're particularizing what is empirical for sake of simplification. That doesn't make "measurements" real.

>You think chemistry is magic? What fucking year were you born in, caveman?
How it's been described to me, this is all I can take.

>>10778145
"They taste different because they are composed of different things/the same things in different arrangements"
Literally geomancy, unless you want to actually start explaining shit proper.

>>10779357
>"It's curved and has density" even though they're concepts and not empirical.
Wrong again, retard.

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

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

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

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

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

>>10779367

>"Time is real and I have everything but empirical evidence of "time" itself to prove you wrong.
Well go on then...

>I measured time
Using a standard of measure humans conceptualized to describe, only the subject matter being described was change itself so that's not proof. Things change because something causes it to change, that something isn't a measurement.
>time passes
Which there is no proof of, unless you think motion itself is time which it isn't.
>intervals of an action is time
Which is patently absurd because an action is not even concrete to begin with. "Doing something" is an action and "ceasing an action" is the absence of that action and therefore unreifiable. So even if you want to go this route you have to explain why actions cease which will send you down a road of fallacies.

>>10779372
>So explain what the fuck "distance" is and how it's empirically "something".
Distance is how much space is in between two points, measured according to a metric.

>At least you're getting warmer. The only thing that gives definition to the object you're observing is light so in essence it is an "image".
In essence it's not. If you can't separate an object from an image of an object then you're retarded, which we already knew.

>take away all qualities of motion
What is motion?

>>10779490
>Distance is how much space is in between two points, measured according to a metric.

Space of what in between them? It's the shit inbewteen the objects that's controlling those objects to begin with.

>measured according to a metric.
A "metric" being a standard of measure that was conceptualized. "As real as unicorns".

Look I'm not arguing whether or not "distance" can be measured, I'm arguing that the distance is absolutely irrelevant considering that everything works as one singular thing to begin with. A medium. There is no "points between a singular thing", "it is" one thing. "What it does" is an action, "distance" is irrelevant. There is no distance.

>if you can't separate an object from an image of an object then you're retarded, which we already knew.
Logically tell me the difference between light and illumination (what light does). You can't do it because it doesn't even fucking exist unless there is an action/disparity to create a difference (aka "make waves").

>What is motion?
Certainly not fucking "distance" "time" or "Space". A change in something observed compared to what is observed not to be (it's surroundings). In the end it's qualities turning into other new qualities so I suppose "qualities of motion" was the incorrect way to phrase it. Take away "motion" and you effectively take away all qualities including the ones that make light.

>>10779599
>Space of what in between them?
The question makes no sense.

>It's the shit inbewteen the objects that's controlling those objects to begin with.
How is this relevant?

>A "metric" being a standard of measure that was conceptualized. "As real as unicorns".
All standards of measure are arbitrary, this had nothing to do with what's being measured, which must exist for you to measure it. There's literally no logic behind anything you say, just platitudes.

>Look I'm not arguing whether or not "distance" can be measured
Then stop talking about measurement you retard.

>I'm arguing that the distance is absolutely irrelevant considering that everything works as one singular thing to begin with.
The universe is one singular thing, and it contains many different things separated by space and time. There is no conflict between these two facts. Again where is your logic? Don't give me more esoteric poetry.

>Logically tell me the difference between light and illumination (what light does).
Light is electromagnetic radiation. Illumination is an effect of light with respect to visualizing something. For example when you illuminate an object this allows your brain to receive an image of that object, which is not the same as the object itself. If your brain recieved the object itself, you would die from blunt force trauma. Try it if you don't believe me.

>A change A change in something observed compared to what is observed not to be (it's surroundings).
What is a change? A change is when the object is one way at one point in time and then another way in another point in time. Without time, there can be no change as there is nothing to separate the states. Motion specifically is a change in position in space over time.

>>10770904
Quantum field fluctuation on the macro scale. Prove me wrong taterheads.

>>10779385
>Well go on then...
Look at a clock you fucking retard.

>Using a standard of measure humans conceptualized to describe, only the subject matter being described was change itself so that's not proof.
Gibberish.

>Things change because something causes it to change, that something isn't a measurement.
I didn't say things change because of a measurement. There you go just making shit up again.

>Which there is no proof of, unless you think motion itself is time which it isn't.
Motion is by definition dependent on time, if motion exists then time exists.

>Which is patently absurd because an action is not even concrete to begin with. "Doing something" is an action and "ceasing an action" is the absence of that action and therefore unreifiable.
More gibberish.

>>10770904
it's the sticky stuff that keeps you close to the ground.

what is charge? if it is analogous to mass why is there no negative gravity?

>>10779939
>The question makes no sense.
If you're expecting No-Spacetime Schizo to ever make sense, you haven't read any of his posts since he started this bullshit. He hasn't made a single cogent point in over a year, at the very least. He just repeats his catchphrases, strawmans, and changes the focus of the argument when he's getting backed into a corner. There is literally no point in conversing with this man because his argument is hollow and exists solely to prop up his own ego.

>>10780350
WHO'S TO SAY THERE ISN'T

SOME ELDRITICHIAN OTHERWORLD INFINITLY AWAY IN DISTANCE AND ATTRACTION

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>10779973
>Look at this thing that runs on energy and fucking gears
Now where is the "time"?

>Gibberish.
Learn something you knucklehead. Measurements aren't real, it's what's measured that is real. If you can't even comprehend this then I suggest you have your closest relative water you twice a day.

>I didn't say things change because of a measurement. There you go just making shit up again.
Whoever did it doesn't matter. The point is there none the less.

>Motion is by definition dependent on time, if motion exists then time exists.
It terms of being QUANTIFIED, yes. That doesn't mean "time" is actually what causes the motion. It's just a measurement used to quantify it!

>More gibberish.
Nouns are not verbs, pretty simple to understand if you're a first grader.

>>10779939
>The question makes no sense.
It does to non-morons who understand that the "space" still has something in it that dictates the fucking distance measured.

>How is this relevant?
Is it full of air? Remove the air. Then what will be the "distance" between the two objects? Nothing because there will be NOTHING DEFINING THE 'DISTANCE" BETWEEN THE OBJECTS.

>All standards of measure are arbitrary, this had nothing to do with what's being measured,
I've only said so about 15 times now

>which must exist for you to measure it
So what are you measuring when you measure "time"? Nothing that exists that's for sure.

>The universe is one singular thing, and it contains many different things separated by space and time.
A contradiction/ fallacy of composition.

>Then stop talking about measurement you retard.
Then stop claiming time is a real phenomena

>If your brain recieved the object itself, you would die from blunt force trauma. Try it if you don't believe me.
It's a projection of what's being reflected.

>Without time, there can be no change
Without change we could make up the measurement "time".

>>10780667

>Only one person believes this
Did you tell yourself that to make you feel better?

>>10771160

People sometimes uses the word ether poetically. Same as calling space 'the heavens'.

>>10782194
>>Only one person believes this
If you're trying to state that I'm the only person that thinks that you're a useless schizo, I can guarantee that it's quite the opposite. You are the only person that you've ever come into contact with that doesn't think that you're mentally deficient.

>>10784041
They're saying that there are others who also believe "spacetime" is a load of horseshit, such as myself.

Physicists don't know what the fuck they're doing when it comes to the concepts of "time" and "space". These are metaphysical (in the philosophical sense) concepts and should therefore be treated as such.

Treating them as actually being physical with properties such curvature is schizophrenic, caused by the desperate attempt of science trying to separate itself from philosophy.

>>10771131

>>10784174
Status: Upset bugman

>>10784041

>If you're trying to state that I'm the only person that thinks that you're a useless schizo, I can guarantee that it's quite the opposite.

Just like you're assuming I'm the only person who believes this. It's not a popularity contest you moron, I honestly could care less about what you think, I care about what you actually know.

>You are the only person that you've ever come into contact with that doesn't think that you're mentally deficient.

You aren't the only person that disregards arguments and substitutes them with gas lighting. Perhaps you should go back to /pol/ where there's plenty of people who will circle jerk and agree blindly with whatever you say.

The truth is consistently hidden from us. Did you know that the famous g in F=mg is basically the gravitational field but somehow it is rarely mentioned for the sake of dumbing down the famous formula for the masses? Think about it, when we talk about the Coulomb law, both the F and E are introduced simultaneously and one is expressed via the other. So you immediately know that the Electric field E is like a one hand clap E=kq/r^2, basically a place holder and you need the second point charge q2 to get the expression for the force F=qE or kq1q2/r^2. But guess what, it is exact same concept for gravity, except most of the time the expression for the force is given in the final form, i.e F=mg or F=Gm1m2/R^2. And that's why people confuse g and G. They think the g is somehow a special constant but that's because unlike the Electric field for an arbitrary charge, F=mg is given strictly in the context of the Earth so the G and R are already plugged in so you have a constant g even though the constant there is the capital G. And what is the lower case g? Well it is the gravitational field which is completely analogous to the electric field as you can see from the corresponding formula. But the g is called "the acceleration due to gravity". Ridiculous. Discuss.

>>10782194
>Now where is the "time"?
It's what the clock is measuring.

>Measurements aren't real
If measurements aren't real (whatever that means), then how do you know something is measured?

>it's what's measured that is real.
So you agree that time is real, since time is what a clock is measuring.

>Whoever did it doesn't matter.
No one did it.

>It terms of being QUANTIFIED, yes.
No, nothing I said was quantified. You don't have to quantify the change in distance and time to see that something changed position in time, which is motion.

>That doesn't mean "time" is actually what causes the motion.
There you go putting words in my mouth again. I didn't say time causes a motion, I said time has to exist for motion to exist. Time also has to exist for one thing to cause another thing, because causality is time-dependent.

>It's just a measurement used to quantify it!
Again that's wrong.

>Nouns are not verbs
How is this relevant?

>It does to non-morons who understand that the "space" still has something in it that dictates the fucking distance measured.
What separates them is space itself. So your question makes no sense.

>Is it full of air? Remove the air. Then what will be the "distance" between the two objects? Nothing because there will be NOTHING DEFINING THE 'DISTANCE" BETWEEN THE OBJECTS.
LOL so put two objects in a vacuum chamber. Measure the distance between them before turning it on. Then turn it on and tell me whether the distance between them changed. You fucking massive retard.

>I've only said so about 15 times now
Then stop talking about measurements.

>So what are you measuring when you measure "time"?
The question answers itself you idiot.

>A contradiction/ fallacy of composition.
It's not.

>Then stop claiming time is a real phenomena
Time is not a measurement, it's what is measured.

>It's a projection of what's being reflected.
Gibberish.

>Without change we could make up the measurement "time".
More gibberish.

>>10784655
>It's what the clock is measuring.
Which is where? It measures the sun and how many times the earth goes around it?

>how do you know something is measured?
Correct. You "measure" "the thing that is real". This doesn't make the standard of measure you conjured up mean anything.

>So you agree that time is real, since time is what a clock is measuring.
A battery and gears can do lots of things other than measuring. Also there is no "subject" to "be measured" that isn't made up. What it's measuring is completely arbitrary. It could measure unicorn to the same effect.

>No one did it.
Well maybe you just got here. I suggest reading all the posts.

>You don't have to quantify the change in distance and time to see that something changed position in time, which is motion.

"change in position over time", doesn't explain what caused the change in motion to begin with.
>time caused it

>Again that's wrong.
No it isn't which is why the answer is in numerical format. It was QUANTIFIED. Now tell me what qualities were quantified. You won't because time has no properties. No qualities that aren't assumed.

>How is this relevant?
Because it's helpful to know the difference between what something is vs what something does.

>What separates them is space itself.
Which also has no properties, so what is causing the "separation"?

>LOL so put two objects in a vacuum chamber. Measure the distance between them before turning it on. Then turn it on and tell me whether the distance between them changed. You fucking massive retard.

Yeah you go ahead and do that. Put them in an absolute vacuum while you're at it, lets remove all the variables.
>Put matter in device that removes matter
>matter is removed
>as well as what is containing the fucking experiment
Good job, now you have absolutely nothing to measure! So what happened to"time and space"? What happened to "distance"?
>you took all the properties away that caused them to be measurable in the first place.

>>10784655
>It's not.
>The universe is one singular thing, and it contains many different things.

Is a contradiction. Explain further. No it's not just "time and space" separating them because "time and space" are not properties! They aren't empirical. If anything they are merely privations of the universe itself, like a shadow to light.

>Time is not a measurement, it's what is measured.

Well you haven't proved so! You yourself said a clock "measures time" so already you've admitted it's a measurement. The only problem is that you cannot point to empirical evidence of this "thing" or phenomena you call "time" other than " motion" which isn't even a concrete "thing" in and of itself. Quantified under the assumption that things have a "Start and stop" which is not even logical. There is no "Start or stop" in the universe, from nothing comes nothing and nothing does not just disappear.

>Gibberish.
>too dumb to look at a mirror.
I supposed you think that there's magical little particles tracking your movement in the glass/silver of it right?

More gibberish.

Meant to say "couldn't make up the measurement of time".
We quantify it using the language dubbed "math", but only to record and reproduce results. Controlling what something does or doesn't do isn't time, it's an action.

>>10784715
>Which is where?
Where in space? Doesn't make sense.

>It measures the sun and how many times the earth goes around it?
This is like saying a thermometer doesn't measure temperature, it measures water boiling.

>This doesn't make the standard of measure you conjured up mean anything.
It means precisely what it's defined as. And again, why are you even taking about standards of measurement? Time is not a standard of measurement.

>A battery and gears can do lots of things other than measuring.
So clocks don't measure time because their components can do other things? You're an idiot.

>Also there is no "subject" to "be measured" that isn't made up.
You just said what is measured is what's real. Make up your mind schizo.

> It could measure unicorn to the same effect.
Please show me your measurements of a unicorn.

>Well maybe you just got here. I suggest reading all the posts.
I've been here since the start, you just make shit up.

>"change in position over time", doesn't explain what caused the change in motion to begin with.
Defining something does not have to explain what causes it.

>time caused it
Does your mental illness compel you to constantly put words in other people's mouths, or is this a deliberate tactic?

>No it isn't which is why the answer is in numerical format.
Nothing I said was in numerical format, stop lying.

>Because it's helpful to know the difference between what something is vs what something does.
That doesn't explain how it's relevant ti this discussion.

>Which also has no properties, so what is causing the "separation"?
I've already given you properties, stop lying.

>Yeah you go ahead and do that. Put them in an absolute vacuum while you're at it, lets remove all the variables.
The distance won't change, the matter between them is irrelevant. You lose.

>>10784715
>Put matter in device that removes matter
>matter is removed
>as well as what is containing the fucking experiment
You're an idiot, you literally said the air between them is what separates them. Remove the air between then and nothing changes.

>>10784733
>Is a contradiction. Explain further.
Use your brain. The natural numbers are a single set, containing many different sets.

>No it's not just "time and space" separating them because "time and space" are not properties!
Position in space and time are properties.

>They aren't empirical.
They are, literally observed every day by everyone. You delusional quack.

>You yourself said a clock "measures time" so already you've admitted it's a measurement.
Measuring something doesn't make that thing a measurement, it makes your measurement of that thing a measurement. This is so fucking obvious yet you still don't get it. You're deluded into a state of mental retardation.

>The only problem is that you cannot point to empirical evidence of this "thing"
As you said, it's the thing that's being measured that's real. The measurement is empirical evidence.

>Meant to say "couldn't make up the measurement of time".
But there is change, meaning there is time. You lose.

>>10784809
>You're an idiot, you literally said the air between them is what separates them.

Yeah, the air. Which has "pressure". Also it was example of air being a medium. It could be "air", or "helium" or "water", remove it and you effectively remove whatever "Distance" is between where you are and where you want to go.

>Remove the air between then and nothing changes.
So particular, you.
Remove the medium entirely. Remove it down to the subatomic fucking "motion". You'll end up removing what you're experimenting on...because in the end it is literally made of the same shit as that medium, just FORMED differently. You're just displacing a medium. It isn't traveling anywhere and there is no "distance" to be had. It's the medium acting upon itself.

>>10784825
Numbers do not explain the universe. Shit that actually exists does though.

>Position in space and time are properties.
"measurements have properties"
"No". Stop this psychosis.

>They are, literally observed every day by everyone. You delusional quack.
I observe qualities and the quantity of qualities. Just because you see something displace something else (ie change and move) does not equate it to some magical force based on the primitive and seemingly short lifespan of a human called "time". Days don't exist, Months don't exist, Years don't exist. It's the rotation of something that is real, around something else that is observed to be real, and the effects that one has upon each other. That is the only thing "empirical". Not your stupid human measurements.

>Measuring something doesn't make that thing a measurement, it makes your measurement of that thing a measurement.
"Gibberish"

>As you said, it's the thing that's being measured that's real. The measurement is empirical evidence.
Yes. But there is no empirical evidence that a "measurement" actually exists and has a basis in reality. This is why "time isn't real.

>But there is change, meaning there is time.
Which is something you made up. Prove it. "What it is" to "what it is not" does not imply that it has to be forced to change by some fairy tale magical force that controls frequency.

>>10784848
actually exists and has a basis in reality.

*as something.

>>10784829
>Yeah, the air. Which has "pressure". Also it was example of air being a medium. It could be "air", or "helium" or "water", remove it and you effectively remove whatever "Distance" is between where you are and where you want to go.
You can easily do that and see it's false by putting two objects in a vacuum chamber as I already said. Then you tried to move the goalposts as you always do by saying all matter has to be removed including the objects. Which makes no sense since we are taking about the distance between the objects. If you can't follow a simple conversation, take your meds.

>Remove the medium entirely.
What medium?

>>10784848
>Numbers do not explain the universe
It's an analogy you fucking retard. Either explain the "contradiction" or fuck off.

>"measurements have properties"
Every time you lie about what I say you lose the argument.

>Just because you see something displace something else (ie change and move) does not equate it to some magical force based on the primitive and seemingly short lifespan of a human called "time".
Seeing something be different at different times does indeed prove time exists. You lose again. There is bo way for you to get around the fact that change requires time for you to exist. Every time you refer to change, motion, where something is, when something is, etc. you admit time exists. You've done it many times already. There is no point on continuing the discussion since you are so delusional you can't see what's right in front of your eyes, you can only flail around spouting platitudes and contradicting yourself. Enjoy your mental illness, I'm out.

>>10784856
>Which makes no sense since we are taking about the distance between the objects.
Okay you can "measure " them. Which again has nothing to do with what they are nor how they work.

>What medium?
Well it's not "nothing" is it? Something "fills" what you call space.

>>10784877
If it's one "singular" thing and contains many "different" things, where does the difference come from? They would be similar to each other.

>Every time you lie about what I say you lose the argument.
"Position in space and time are properties"

It's like saying that moving my table to the corner of the room gives it a different property. It can't be used to it's full potential, but it certainly hasn't been given a new property, it's stil la fucking table. Only "space" and "time" aren't real places to have a "position" in. You're just parroting nonsense at this point.

>Seeing something be different at different times does indeed prove time exists
>Compressing an air tank and watching the pressure equalize in an atmosphere of the same composition requires "time" to equalize the pressure.

Moron, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. That's what losers do by the way. They run away.

>>10778997
redpill me on australians. what are they even doing out in badgingarra?

>>10770992
Unironically you dont know what aether means with respect to theories of space. LA is dead af and never coming back under any circumstance.

The level of schizo posting in this thread is truly breathtaking.

>>10777628
Isn’t time the perception of duration?

>>10785188
>perception of duration
is a mirage real?

>>10785124
>we disproved one theory of the aether and so that disproves all of them
Rofl I'm with this >>10785142 poster

I’m pretty sure it has something to do with entanglement.

The level of energy in the angle of refraction in the essence of the vat is growing with the power of the universal life force of the aether of the vat.

>>10770904
Why does gravity not fall ?

>>10785294
He's talking about YOU, you fucking mongoloid.

You shouldn't try to explain the concepts correctly to people like >>10784922 because they will always find there own way to work around the facts. These people are generally antisocial and have spent a long time manifesting there ideas so they feel as though the time they have spent thinking has shown them a proper view of how things are. Instead of telling them how things are have them explain there point of view and show to them how they may be wrong. You shouldn't force them to begin thinking rationally, that is a choice they have to come up with on there own. Some people have fallen to far to come around, and arguing with them like this is only going to want to fight for their beliefs more.

is gravity paranormal? like devils and angels?

>>10770904
Cosmic pressure.

>>10787122
"I am so incredibly mad that this immense asshole tried to give me dozens of chances to prove that my descriptions were no different than a pentagram-candle-on-the-floor drawing geomancing alchemist and I couldn't even do it. I couldn't give him one property of space or time so now I'm going to tell everyone on an anonymous image board to not take him seriously so that maybe he won't talk about it being a medium."

Yeah you go do that, gas lighting doesn't really work on sites like this.

"We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."- Albert Einstein

>>10770904
>yfw you discover gravity is a fictitious force resulting from slight imbalances in EM between neutral and similarly charged objects.

cap this

>>10787952
>Gravity is just a weak magnetic field!
How did you even find this board?

>>10788529
i didn't say it was a weak magnetic field. i said it was explainable strictly using EM.

i will be publishing in a few months. you saw it here first.

>>10787930
>couldn't give him one property of space or time
Except multiple people have given you multiple properties of both in this thread alone, not to count the thousands of other threads you've shat up with this garbage. You just don't listen because you know that it would completely shatter your dumbass worldview. Also, it's hilarious that you liken spacetime to alchemy when you literally believe in magic ether.

>>10787930
Is closeness a property? If my computer is closer to me than my car then I can say that the area between me and my computer is slightly smaller than the area between me and my car. If I said this would I be making any false claims in your world view? Explain what you believe is to true so that I could get a better understanding of your world view.

It's the difference in speed of time. The more gravity, the faster time goes, the more time you have to exert force on something,

When you walk on a flat surface, you have more time to move your feet than your head. If you relax your muscles, you fall down, since it's the path of least resistance - towards where time is moving faster..


gravity isn't a thing, it's all just time.

>>10789805
>Is closeness a property?

Not really. "Closeness" is not a property that anything can really "posses", for how does one posses "closeness"? It's not really a quality, more so a measurement like distance. You could fill the grey area by saying that the objects "need" or "are reliant" on others, but that doesn't mean they have to be "close" to another. Bringing an ice cube "closer" to a hot source isn't giving the ice cube the property of "being close" or "having less distance", it's whatever that is hot exhibiting the properties of "hotness" interacting with the properties of cold. That effect is graduated (immeasurably mind you) by what is inbetween the two, or "other stuff with other properties" (such as air). All you're doing is effectively removing the resistance(the air) out of the way by making the icecube react less with it and more with whatever is "hot". Or the qualities of the hot item is impelling the air to move which in turn impels the ice to move and melt. That can certainly be measure as "distance" or "closeness", but that doesn't mean distance or closeness is the cause of your measurement. You could blow the hot air emitted to the ice cube without moving the ice or whatever is emitting the hotness.
A better understanding is that "place" doesn't matter, only what is "displaced". You can call it "traveling and distance" if you want, but all that's occurred is a displacement of what was already there and still technically "there". Has more to do with density than anything else. Will a boat have traveled further on the same amount of fuel if the front had been pointed as opposed to flat? Yes? Because of the qualities it possessed, which wasn't "distance" at all. It altered the recorded result of distance/time in traveled with something that was not distance nor time (the pointed boat hull). Furthermore the boat itself runs on the qualities of "pressure" resultant from a "hot and cold" medium, at least if it's driven by a gasoline engine.

>>10770904
>transformers, electric universe schizos in disguise