/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10943396
Jews are evil.

>>10943401
>nose man bad

>>10943409
Notice how the npc has a jewish nose.

>>10943396
based

>>10943396
>someone patented an explanation of the photoelectric effect and special relativity
lol

>>10943473

> he doesn't know

>>10943509
epic

>>10943473
He's probably talking about his work on condensed matter physics or something, i see a lot of (mostly non-white) guys complaining about how einstein suposedly stole the works of Boson (wich is funny since neither of them are white).

>>10943396
>*reaches cookie table before you*

Nothing personnel, smallbrain

>>10943513
Turbokikes and neonazis are the only groups that claim ashkenazi jews arent white. Which one are you?

>>10943411
I thought the npcs were supposed to be controlled by the jews, but they are the jews themselves? /pol/ can’t even keep their retarded shit straight anymore

>>10943522
Are these people "white"?

>>10943537
>homosex conspiracy board cant keep its conspiracies straight

>>10943537
>False flag attack.
All /pol/s are stupid. No, you /sci/lets simply can't use their memes.
>>10943473
Brainlet-tier: Einstein developed special relativity.
Master-tier: Lorentz and Hilbert developed special relativity.
>Photoelectric effect
Oh wow. Someone just copied off Planck.
>>10943522
Literally no one has ever called Jews white. People from the 18th-century didn't include jews when they spoke of white people. Neither did people from the 19th or 20th century.

>>10943562
>Master-tier: Lorentz and Hilbert developed special relativity.
brainlet
>Oh wow. Someone just copied off Planck.
brainlet

learn freshman physics

>>10943567
I can assure you. I know much more about physics than you, kid. You're not the own with a master's degree in physics.

>>10943539
Just the girl.

>>10943573
I'm glad I'm not the only true gentleman of culture contending with this one particular moron. I swear more of these kikes show up every goddamned day.

>>10943562
Galaxy brain take: Einstein created/discovered relativity and afterwards Hilbert and Lorentz developed it

>>10944926
>

>>10943522
Under some definitions of white they are, and under some they are not.

everything is personal

>>10943396
>finds the patent you filed
>hmm this design is an improvement on mine
>builds it and doesn't pay you anything
>you can't afford court costs
>destroys your life and family

Nothing personal kid.

Only retards who don't understand the physics think that Einstein stole from Lorentz

>Anti-semitism
Get that pseudoshit outta here

>>10943539
Persians are arguably white, yes.

>>10945958
this.

when will the /pol/tards end their raid? do we need to start posting PHENOTYPE threads on their containment board so they go back?

>>10945958
Do you think that being proven wrong is going to stop them?

>>10943517
Who is that semon demon in the red [spoiler]tie[/math]?

>>10945580
Well, yes. Personal doesn't mean vendetta though, Tooker.

I just don't know what reward you want, Tooker, for having disproved it. Unless you have a fetish for humiliating established intelligencia doctrine in public.

>I know I do! Diogenes No. 2!

>>10945357
> and under some they are not.
I'm curious, which ones are those?

My parents are from the Baltic state of Lithuanian. I am sometimes called not white because I'm not from any of the western European Germanic nationalities. But I still am pale and get sunburned when wearing 80 SPF sun block.

Why do white nationalists only associate whiteness with people from North-Western Europe? I can't make sense out of it.

>>10946159
Something something aryan race something something. Who knows how their minds work. Some people just NEED something to feel superior about.

>>10946159
>inb4 your race is culturally determined

>>10946104
>Never take an infographic at face value
>The post is literally an infographic itself.
Wow, get the fuck away with that bullshit.
>Einstein was unique.
The formulas for special relativity had already popped up 10 years before Einstein even published anything and Hilbert's formulation of Relativity also contained everything that would describe general relativity down to the Einstein field equations.
>Facts? No, must be anti-semitism.
Nice coping, brainlets.

>>10946332
>The formulas for special relativity had already popped up 10 years before Einstein even published anything
and yet nobody had explained them in terms of relativity before einstein

>>10946379
this. what einstein did is literally
>well I could do that
>yeah but you didn't
nobody can blame him for "stealing"

The only thing. The one thing I don't love about Einstein's work, is that he describes the phenomenon of gravitation as a transformation of space, which I have no real reason to acknowledge as true or valid. I do now and will continue to believe, until given conclusive evidence to the contrary, that space is occupied by some substance as yet undetected. I find it immensely troubling that something which has no physical properties of its own can be compressed or expanded. I understand that these compressions and expansions correspond perfectly with changes in permittivity and permeability of space, and I recognize that in the application of the theory my personal gripe is not relevant or applicable, but I simply refuse to believe that space has properties. Even if the substance that occupies a space of vacuum is indistinguishable from vacuum in every measurable way, I can not understand how a wave of any kind could traverse distance without a physical medium. I love Einstein, as a kid I wanted to be Einstein, but that contrived belief in some arbitrary volume of nothingness somehow possessing physical properties I just can't ignore. If light and gravity are waves, then spacetime is a physical medium composed of constituent parts, capable of transferring momentum between parts through collision.

>>10946513

*Mileva's work

>>10946513
> he describes the phenomenon of gravitation as a transformation of space, which I have no real reason to acknowledge as true or valid.
how about light bending, gravitational lensing, LIGO observing gravitational waves, and that picture of a black hole?
> I do now and will continue to believe, until given conclusive evidence to the contrary, that space is occupied by some substance as yet undetected.
why would you believe in aether when no evidence in favor of it exists? the burden of proof is on you to prove a substance exists, not on others to prove that it doesn't exist. (well, actually, bajillions of tests of SR have debunked it already)
> I find it immensely troubling that something which has no physical properties of its own can be compressed or expanded.
it's not compressed or expanded, the word you are looking for is "curved". and spacetime's curvature is a property of spacetime. length contraction is an observer-dependent thing, whereas curvature is invariant.
> I understand that these compressions and expansions correspond perfectly with changes in permittivity and permeability of space,
no they don't
>and I recognize that in the application of the theory my personal gripe is not relevant or applicable, but I simply refuse to believe that space has properties.
again, back to the light bending, gravitational lensing, etc. etc.
>I can not understand how a wave of any kind could traverse distance without a physical medium.
why not study the equations of GR then? maybe it will make sense to you if you try.

the real funny thing is that electric universe idiots are mostly innumerate, but the two of them who ever tried to do some math (crothers and evans) ended up revealing how in-bad-faith all their claims were... when people pointed out their blatant mathematical mistakes they just doubled down and denied that their math was wrong. when someone shows you how you made a mistake in your math and you deny it, it's just sad

>>10946379
This is just stupid. Of course, they were explained in terms of relativity, even if those papers were primarily concerned with electrodynamics.
>>10946424
>>well I could do that
>yeah but you didn't
You're introducing arguments that don't exist in the first place. Hilbert not only could do it. He did do it. Einstein is associated with relativity for the same reason why Edison is associated with the lightbulb. Not because they invented it.

>>10946564
But why does it curve? Couldn't it just be that the refractive index is changed because of pressure in some optical medium?

>>10946616
it curves because of the presence of mass-energy. the einstein equations say that curvature tensor is given by the stress-energy tensor. similar to how the classical EM field in a region is given by the distribution and motion of charges in that region

an optical medium might be a naiive way to explain e.g. the bending of light around the sun, but all attempts to detect such a medium have failed, and furthermore all the tests indicate that a medium for light is incompatible with the observations of said tests (for example, if there were an aether, then any fluctuation in the relative speed of the LHC with respect to the aether would cause the LHC to not work at all, since it will only work provided its protons are going 99.999999(more 9's)% the speed of light, and it would fail if the speed of light got perturbed by a change in the relative speed of the aether wind.

>>10946644
Given the extremely small scale of anything proposed to hypothetically compose the aether, wouldn't something so stupendously lightweight behave more like a non newtonian fluid than a wind? Or maybe it's not composed of particles at all, but more or less cellular pockets of energy too rarefied to be assigned any structural description? Couldn't also the aether wind have simply attained some equilibrium or confinement in the Earth's gravitational field, or maybe it is so extremely light and fluid that the gravitational waves from the spiraling of the Earth simply mitigate any trajectory the particles may have had upon approach?

Well my last post wasn't very scientific but you get the picture, I'm not wholly convinced that the aether should behave the way you suggest, so why should I be?

>>10946608
>they were explained in terms of relativity
They were not
>He did do it
He did not
Why is there a subset of people who are obsessed with discrediting Einstein? It really makes me think. I wonder what their motive could be. Hmmm.....

>>10946710
Don't acknowledge it. It really doesn't matter who believes what, the only thing that really counts is the idea itself. Now help me to understand, please. Why should I believe in space curvature?

>>10946715
Because there is physical evidence for it

>>10946720
Please show me this incontrovertible proof that space curves, which is somehow more plausible than a pressurized optical fluid.

>>10943573

Correction: which is somehow more plausible than that space contains a pressurized optical fluid.
apologies

>>10946725
>incontrovertible proof
No such thing in physics. Come back when you know what science even *is*

>>10946731
Ok show me the evidence that gives you reason to believe that space curves, rather than being occupied by an optical fluid

I apologize for using a loaded question, that was big gay. Just please help me understand.

>>10946739
Gravity waves, gravitational lensing, etc. Feel free to educate yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

I want to be as sure as you are about the mysterious nature of the cosmos, so please enlighten me. There's evidence, I absolutely agree, for spacetime curvature. Doesn't that same evidence equally indicate that space is occupied by an optical fluid? Would it not be so elegant and so intuitive if gravity could simply be described as an acoustic wave in this medium?

>>10946752
You are free to develop a mathematical model of this fluid that you imagine is up there. But remember to eperimentally show how this model is more accurate than GR.

>>10946747
Dang I'm so disappointed, I am already familiar with all of those tests. I thought for sure you knew something that I didn't, since you seemed so sure. I'm still not entirely sold, I'm afraid.
>>10946758
Why can't it be exactly as accurate as general relativity? I don't want to do away with general relativity, just amend it to include a disclaimer.

>>10946764
What the fuck is the point of amending a theory if it doesn't make the theory better? I wouldn't expect someone that has no education to be doubtful.

>>10946767
I agree with you that it doesn't make the theory better for application with calculations, but it does make the theory better in principle because it is better descriptive of the actual mechanisms involved. The notion of curvature in space is silly, in my opinion. I think there is a better way of describing the same observed phenomenon. That is all.

>>10946775
Inventing unnecesary mechanisms to explain something is the opposite of "making something better"

>>10946783
Actually, my modified theory of general relativity would be satisfied merely by the classical laws of physics, and your spacetime curvature is the additional unnecessary axiom that I see as invented and contrived.

>>10946800
Feel free to explain time dilation with your model. Feel free to explain gravity waves also.

>>10946804
Gravity waves are definitely an acoustic wave in the whatever. The attraction between two objects is a result of simple interference between such waves. As for time dilation, I will have to get back to you on that one. Don't dismiss me completely just yet, I will have something for you by the end of the day. Literally never have even thought of that but I'm sure it's not as hard to solve as it sounds.

>>10946812
You are going to have to be a fuck of a lot more specific than that to call it a model. I need equations.

>>10946775
>I agree with you that it doesn't make the theory better for application with calculations, but it does make the theory better in principle because it is better descriptive of the actual mechanisms involved.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT TOTALLY LAYS OUT ALL THE DETAILS FOR SOME PERSON WELL-VERSED IN THE MATTER TO MAKE A NEW CALCULATION BASED ON THE NEW MECHANISM!!!!

The problem is, one of many problems really, is that the theories of QM and GR we have today have 100 years of polish on them by now, so any new theory is going to look QUITE different when it first appears. Indeed, it is total bullshit to say, "You have to do everything from initial ideation to final polishing all by yourself or else you get no credit at all, and you cannot ever possibly get credit for simply suggesting an idea by which some other person might create a polished science morsel."

Here is the analogy I like to make about making calculations vs. describing mechanisms. In software engineering, development tasks are divided between software architects an the code monkeys that implement the architect's solutions. Not only does the architect get paid a lot more than the code monkey, there is no requirement for the architect to even know the syntax of the language in which the code monkey will implement his architectural plan. In physics, making calculations is rarely anything more than plugging some energy function into a numerical integration software module. There are literally tens of thousands of world-class experts out there who do this professionally but have no ideas for any new functions to type. Using a keyboard to type an energy function into your computer is not the bottleneck in theoretical physics. The bottleneck is that, despite all these geniuses trying, none of them can come up with an idea for a new energy function. That's why software architects get paid more than software engineers: the architects do the hard part and then engineers do the tedious part.

>>10946816
You are either on some kind of a stimulant or are schizophrenic.

>>10946775
>doesn't make the theory better for application with calculations, but it does make the theory better in principle because it is better descriptive of the actual mechanisms involved.

Look at Newton's book, The Principia, as an example. Newton did certainly make some calculation, and I did not, so this is not the best analogy. However, if you read Newton's book, it's mostly just him talking about his ideas. All of the stuff we call "Newtonian mechanics" today actually comes from Cauchy. Cauchy took Newton's arcitectural masterpiece and turned in to the
[math]F = dp / dt[/math]

and
[math]F = m a[/math]

module that we all know and love today. The reason it's called Newtonian mechanics instead of Cauchy mechanics is because everyone knows that laying down the broad strokes of a new idea is the hard part to getting advancement in science. The hard part is never, "How can I convert this idea into a testable mathematical statement?" The hard part is coming up with an idea that won't obviously fail the first test when it is cast as a mathematical statement. There are millions of people out there who can test ideas. The dearth in the number of people coming up with new ones to test. The big problem with the USA government is that they are saying to those testers, "You need to pretend like Tooker's idea doesn't exist and you can never test it or else we will cancel your NSF money, and probably take away your tenure too."

Here's another example: Lorentz had already invented the Lorentz transformation before Einstein used it to describe special relativity. Lorentz is not credited with inventing relativity because he just made some equations and never said anything about the physics of relativistic simultaneity. Einstein is credited as the great genius because he is the one who described the physical principles which underlie the calculations.

>>10946813
Alright I've got a general idea I'm going to mill around for a while, what do you think about this?

The period of oscillation of an atom is reduced when it meets with resistance in the form of a gravitational wave. More matter means higher frequency and larger amplitude for the wave, so an atom oscillates noticeably slower near large bodies of mass.

>>10946842
>>10946833
>>10946816
Seek help

>>10946833
>You need to pretend like Tooker's idea doesn't exist and you can never test it or else we will cancel your NSF money, and probably take away your tenure too.
Why are you posting an image whose filename doesn't start with "TIMESAND" or "TRINITY" Tooker?

>>10946845
I am seeking help. Why don't you help me?

I just explained time dilation using classical mechanics, I believe. Tooker, help me out here. I'm sure you can do the math on this. Ignore that guy he obviously doesn't want to help me out here.

>>10946849
>Why are you posting an image whose filename doesn't start with "TIMESAND" or "TRINITY" Tooker?
it's just some more time sand for you, I guess. Entire alternate universes are now collapsing when I shadowban the email about how
>>10946833
needs manual intervention in the [dbo].[Satans-rebellion] jobs.

>>10946850
I'd love to. Now you should accept my help, babe. Lay off the stimulants, Jon.

Nothing would make my dick harder than to let Tooker get the nobel prize for this one. Fuck the system. Fuck credibility. Fuck authority. Fuck qualifications. Fuck sanity. Fuck normal fags. This would be the ultimate fuck you to an establishment I have always despised, and I pray that it comes to fruition.

>>10946876
Unfortunately, Greta Thunberg has a better chance to get it. Sad but true, she got nominated for it. God of political correctness be praised.

I don't think the King of Sweden will ever put that medal on my neck. Did you know the main goal of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science is not to advance science, but to advance the interests of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Milners' $3M physics prize and the $1M Clay Millennium prize, unlikely as they are, are about 100M times more likely than me going to Sweden to put on a black and white clown suit for the fucking King of Sweden to award me with honors and 10M kronor.

>>10946903
Even if a sub human gets credit for my idea, that would be annoying but also very amusing. The main thing is the idea, whoever came up with it doesn't matter. I'm not a religious man, but it's idolatry is obviously bad business.

>>10946905
Based Tooker, yeah fuck that. I wouldn't suck that tyrants dick even for 100M kronor. A good deed is its own reward, am I right?

>>10946842
Oh obvious correction, my bad. The period of oscillation of an atom is increased* when it meets with resistance in the form of gravity waves. My bad, sorry that was completely obvious.

I guess it would be better described as resistance with the medium itself, which incidentally contains waves of increased density. So that time dilation is explained for accelerated masses, and not just atomic clocks. I guess that much was to be inferred.

Tooker, are you following me on this?>>10946918
>>10946967
Are you modeling it mathematically? Am I missing something?

>>10946973
I don't follow, no.

>>10946977
well shit. What's wrong with my description of time dilation? If the oscillatory period of an atom is increased, it is effectively experiencing time slower. I am suggesting that time dilation is literally friction experienced by an atom by collision with spacetime or the aether or whatever.

>>10946983
It's my own understanding of gravrad. Honestly, I do not even know is gravrad is a wave whose peaks are normal and whose troughs are rarefaction/compression, or whose peaks and troughs are rarefaction and compression respectively. I don't know enough about it.

>>10947004
>do not even know is gravrad
do not even know *if* gravrad

>>10947004
Ok well I guess that is some consolation. I appreciate your willingness to admit ignorance. That's very cool of you.

So, nobody have evidence to disprove Einstein isn't a plagiarist?

>>10947447
don't you think that if he was a plagiarist, then people outside the sphere of stormfags and poltards would have figured it out?

also, if your IQ were above say 110 and you had access to any university's library resources, you could look through the literature and verify for yourself that his 1925 papers were totally original (in terms of PHYSICS. if you try to match equations to mathematical papers maybe you can find them, but applying equations in a way that reconceptualizes the ideas of space and time is a bit different from writing down an equation.)

>>10947477
oops, i meant 1905 papers. my b

>read his book
>it's all about zionism and how I should donate money for their cause...

>>10947477

>/pol/ boogeyman

I haven't said anything about the other thousands of Jews that contributed to physics, only about the fake socialist capitalist lapdog that was Einstein. The work of the proletariat is what brings new ideas to life, not individuals.

>>10947559
>/pol/ boogeyman
the fact is that /pol/ stormfags and breitbart boomers ARE a major cancer on this site. and your post about einstein being a “socialist lapdog” is a perfect example of the retarded ideas that whatever echo chamber you came from managed to meme into existence. redpill me on Q genius anon

>>10946104
on full damage control arent we sweety.
gas yourself you fat balding aspie kike.

>>10947595
>every post i don’t like is jews

>>10947477
>reconceptualizes the ideas of space and time is a bit different from
it sure is!!!

>>10947613
good argument. applying math means nothing and writing equations is eveything. good luck winning the nobel prize in physics by programming sympy to write a loop of every possible equation

>>10947620
IMO, the qualitative part is more important than the quantitative part. Once you have an idea that makes sense, you can come up with 500 different quantified versions until you find the correct one (history of the Biot-Savart equation anyone?) To the contrary, if you eschew the qualitative part, then you won't even have anything to try to quantify. I guess is is fine if you think it's 50/50 between qualitative and quantitative, it's just a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the qualitative part is more than half of the scientific endeavor, but people who come up with proportions like 10/90 or 0/100 are just retarded.

>>10947665
good post jon. this is why i have hope for you and your real potential. you just need to give up the "i am god" stuff and the "i will kill your children with torture". if you stop those behaviors, you would have real potential.

>>10947681
If there was someone else posting on /sci/ whose name was God and whose real potential was to kill his enemies and to do genocide on them by killing their children, and then build an amazing kingdom on the memory of what happened to those infidels, then you'd probably say the same thing to them, no?

>>10943396
Based ^ redpilled.

>>10947716
you’re referring to Solischizus?
“he” is a neural net program, not a real human. “his” programmers trained it on your posts

>>10943396
There is some rumors that say that Einstein might have plagiarized his Mass–energy equivalence "E=mc2" formula from a guy named Olinto De Pretto who published a very similar formula 2 years before Einstein did.

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

>>10943539
No. Caucasian depending on your definition, maybe, but not white

>>10943562
>Literally no one has ever called Jews white
I beg to differ. Pic related

>>10945357
Some definitions of *Caucasian. Unless you mean like "it's a white people thing to like ham and cheese on white bread"

>>10947575
The guy clearly said that he was a fake socialist, can you read?

>>10943409
can't even make your own memes, pathetic