/sci/ - Science & Math

I don't know but something tells me it's not a force and not spacetime

Gravity is the curvature of space-time

>>11437786
How sure are we that the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit?

>>11437786
let's find out what pulls stuff together.
>nothing your measurements are just bending
thanks brainlet

>>11436521
Gravity is the source of negative energy. Without it, the universe wouldn't have banged.

>>11436521
probably the same thing as the casimir effect.

>>11437786
Spacetime is not a real thing, it's a mathematical abstraction that just so happens to model the nature of gravity relatively well.

spacetime is a logical consequence of Einstein's postulate that there is a maximum speed which is exactly the same for everybody, no matter how they are moving. Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense only if space and time were intertwined

It's entropy faggots

>>11437809
>the negative charge
>the vacuum sucks
>the negative energy
to live in the unicorn universe must be fun

>>11437812
the speed of light is not constant.
GR does not explain anything it just shifts the blame.
Space is a posterior attribute.

>>11437779
Anti-force.

>>11437796
We're not. There could be tachyons that travel faster than the speed of light. when they get more energy they slow down. P.S. my spell checker would not accept tachyons, any ideas on why?

Good luck coming up with something better than the Stress-Energy Tensor in GR.

>>11437810
why are you all to stupid to realize the casimir effect shows you exactly what gravity is.
The ether pushing shit together.

>>11437810
>>11437950
gravity and the casimir effect? the casimir effect has nothing to do with a volume of mass-energy but rather has to do with boundary conditions on the quantum fields. this argument would amount to saying that gravity depends on surface area or something.

i am curious though, this is a new EUtardation meme for me. can you try to explain it better?

>>11437961
simple ether waves push objects together.

let me ask you then. Can space exist without anything in it?

>>11437961
>has nothing to do with a volume of mass-energy
You like to throw big boy words around without defining them.
what is mass?
what makes objects have mass?
define mass for me?

ahhh so this is 4chan

>>11437984
>simple ether waves push objects together.
that doesn’t explain your casimir effect analogy at all. just hand waving
>let me ask you then. Can space exist without anything in it?
yes

>>11437993
i could give you a deeper answer but it’s pointless since you are obviously doing sophistry, typical of pseud trolls. the answer i give you is that mass is something you can measure and is proportional to inertia (i know you probably never took high school physics but inertia is like the momentum something carries at a given speed)

>>11438039
>yes
In a hypothetical universe with only one object how big is the space?
>i could give you a deeper answer
nice weaseling.
Should I just assume you think mass is weight then?
What is inertia?
what makes objects have inertia?
define inertia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E&t=1s

>>11438061
In a hypothetical universe with only one object how big is the space?
infinite or as small as you like. basically anything. the schwarzschild solution is what you are talking about -- a universe with one object -- and it is usually infinite but you can wrap it around on a torus so that it has a finite extent.

>Should I just assume you think mass is weight then?
no
>What is inertia?
already explained it, it basically is explained by the formula p=mv

>what makes objects have inertia?
mass

>define inertia?
again, stare at the equation p=mv

usually you EUtards complain about quantum physics or relativity but ITT you're bitching about Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations. please, tell me what your alternate physics is that has neither quantum theory nor relativity nor maxwell's electrodynamics nor newton's laws. i'll wait

>>11438083
oops i meant to greentext that top line, my bad

>>11438012
No, THIS IS 4CHANNEL *throws u in a volcano*

>>11436521
I am inclined to believe that the real scientists already know and aren't telling for a very good reason, possibly for our own good. That won't stop me from trying to fuck it all up for no coherent reason whatsoever.

>>11438039
>that doesn’t explain your casimir effect analogy at all. just hand waving
the reason this goes over your head is because you are a little bill nye peon that has not read one thing about ether theory. You only read the approved list of books.
proof me wrong
Oliver Heaviside
Charles Proteus Steinmetz
Oleg D. Jefimenko
any of them?
>>11438083
you explain mass with inertia and inertia with mass. That is called a circular argument.
>infinite or as small as you like.
between 0 and infinite is a non answer.
But you seem scared to give me answers anyway.
I will do you the favor space can only be between objects. from point A to B you measure 1m that is space it is a mental construct and does not exist on it's own.

>>11438104
witten explains it in a bunch of youtube videos. look it up. the large-scale gravitational geometry is described by coherent backrounds of lots of stringy gravitons, and quantum gravity on the smaller scale is dictated by the quantum mechanics of graviton string states

>>11438123
>you explain mass with inertia and inertia with mass. That is called a circular argument.
no, i showed you an equation that you should try to understand. p=mv. think about that.

>between 0 and infinite is a non answer.
no, it is an answer idiot. in the schwarzschild solution you can have an infinite spacetime or a finite one of any size. this is a clear answer and you railing against it is typical "me no like science, me object hurr durr"

>But you seem scared to give me answers anyway.
oh okay. sure. shaking in my boots! EU high school dropouts are so intimidating over the internet, true!

>I will do you the favor space can only be between objects. from point A to B you measure 1m that is space it is a mental construct and does not exist on it's own.
what? are you trying to start a stupid philosophy argument? if i tell you "my bedroom is 6 meters wide" are you going to be like "NOOO METERS ARE FAKE NEWS"

>>11438150
you are still unable to define mass, I will except that you can't and not repeat my questions.
You seem confused.
A space can be as big as you want since it is a mental crutch. If there is nothing for reference then there is no space. Space is not a primary attribute of reality.
Space does not influence reality it is only a mental frame.
Just keep watching Billy Nye the science guy and keep up to date with the gender list anon.
I would not expect you to read anything that would challenge your believe system.
"100 Autoren gegen Einstein" for example.
But I am sure you have a Universe from nothing on your night table.
Looking forward to all the great inventions you will help to bring to live with GR and QM still waiting for fusion reactors.

>>11438186
wow, a “legacy” performance in pseud sophistry. i defined mass. i said you can measure it. do you demand more than the hands-on practical definition?

> Space does not influence reality it is only a mental frame.
oh okay now you go into “muh mind dictates reality”. good stuff. just like the newage hippie shit. total garbage

>>11438349
>i defined mass. i said you can measure it. Do you demand more than the hands-on practical definition?
>mass is something you can measure and is proportional to inertia
"You can measure it" doesn't tell anyone shit about what it is you're talking about. Here's an idea, why don't you differentiate it from inertia since you can't seem to define mass without it.

>oh okay now you go into “muh mind dictates reality”. good stuff. just like the newage hippie shit. total garbage
He never said that, but don't let that stop you from putting words in his mouth. Or continuing to fail at explain what the fuck space is.

>>11436521
How gravity works on 4chan:

Gravity is the work of microscopic Jews who surround valuable things and pull other things towards them. Gold is heavy and methane is light because that is how much Jews want those things. Naturally the strongest gravity is to the center of the earth, because that is where hell is.

>>11438379
."You can measure it" doesn't tell anyone shit about what it is you're talking about.
well then anon, the fact that you need someone to explain to you something that manifestly exists to the point where everybody can go out and make quantitative measurements of said thing does not mean i need to explain it to you. if i said "cars exist" then if you demanded i explain what a car was, it would be fucking stupid. because cars do exist and saying you need an explanation is fucking retarded. mass exists and needing an explanation is fucking retarded.

>Here's an idea, why don't you differentiate it from inertia since you can't seem to define mass without it.
i told you already, look at the equation p=mv
if you can't understand that then i am really sorry that you are so primitive in your understanding

>>11438447
>well then anon, the fact that you need someone to explain to you something that manifestly exists to the point where everybody can go out and make quantitative measurements of said thing does not mean i need to explain it to you.
Humor me for a moment: Tell me what the gravity is at the center of earth.
Also descriptions are still not explanations. If I wanted someone describing random shit with no explanation behind it, I would have visited a catholic church.

>if i said "cars exist" then if you demanded i explain what a car was, it would be fucking stupid.
How? What if I didn't know what a car was? Then if wouldn't be stupid, you would be though for simply putting your blind faith in a description of something I don't know exist. It would be like asking a newly hired handyman helper to go fetch you tools he's never fucking heard of.

>because cars do exist and saying you need an explanation is fucking retarded.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with how a car comes into existence. So please stop huffing your own hot air and differentiate mass from inertia.

>i told you already, look at the equation p=mv
Descriptions are not explanations

>if you can't understand that then i am really sorry that you are so primitive in your understanding
I'm sorry you have such a difficult time answering a pretty straight forward question. It's okay to not know, you know. I am so happy for you that you're able to describe in terms of quantification what "momentum " is, but unfortunately that is not even close to what I asked. Unless you're saying that mass IS momentum, which is patently absurd since it isn't. "What IS mass?" Why do you think you need math or an equation to answer this? Just tell me what the fucker actually is you drooling brainlet.

>>11437796
I've long figured the speed of light to be the "ceiling" for our dimension's range of vibrations, the "floor' for the next one up, and so on.

>>11438406

>>11438406
Diamonds break this theory.

>>11437812
>Spacetime is not a real thing, it's a mathematical abstraction that just so happens to model the nature of gravity relatively well.
What is the difference between a "real thing" and the model that best fits the data? Hint: they're the same thing.

Gravity is untestable. This makes it fake. All gravity experiments are flawed.

Gravity was made to explain orbiting.

The earth is moving up at 9.8m/s2.

The earth is flat.

Nothing orbits.

The sun and moon are diodes and held in place with electromagnetism.

All evidence of gravity is manufactured.

You cannot prove anything I have stated wrong.

>>11437820
>the speed of light is not constant.
According to all measurements it is.

>GR does not explain anything it just shifts the blame.
Oh, so you must have a better explanation, I can't wait to hear it.

>Space is a posterior attribute.
Of what?

>>11438509
>You cannot prove anything I have stated wrong.
There is no need to since the burden of proof is on you. Oh look, there is no proof in your post, so you fail.

>>11438474
>Humor me for a moment: Tell me what the gravity is at the center of earth.
Do you mean what is the force of gravity felt by a particle at the center of the Earth?

>Also descriptions are still not explanations.
Explanations are descriptions, and that's what you're complaining about. Mass is simply a property of matter manifested in various observable relationships between inertia, energy, gravity, wavelength, etc. That you are not satisfied with this explanation has no bearing on its existence.

>How? What if I didn't know what a car was?
Then you should go look at one instead of crying about it not being explained sufficiently to you.

>Which has absolutely nothing to do with how a car comes into existence.
Where did you ask how mass comes into existence? Either way, it exists. All you have is sophistry and lame attempts to move goalposts.

>>11438579
EUtard BTFO. good work anon

To know the workings of gravity is to know the workings of the totality of all that exists, which is impossible on its face.

>>11436521
Gravity is the expression of the 4th spatial dimension. Obviously. That's why black holes appear the way they do. From a 2-dimensional view, a 3-dimensional hole in a piece of paper would look very much the same.

I'm bad at math, so I can't prove it with science, but I'm fairly certain it's true.

Of course, the actual meaning of this would be crazy. If you could make an object with 3, but not 4 dimensions, you would have a weightless object.

>>11438579
>Do you mean what is the force of gravity felt by a particle at the center of the Earth?
>Do you mean Do you mean Do you mean
>of gravity
if it's "of gravity" then I refer to "gravity" this alleged "force" belongs to, like in my original question.

>Explanations are descriptions,
"No"

>Mass is simply a property of matter manifested in various observable relationships between inertia, energy, gravity, wavelength, etc.
You're confusing a measurement for a property such as "Hot" and "cold". Measurements are measurements, they don't have properties.

>That you are not satisfied with this explanation has no bearing on its existence
Exactly. Measurements don't exist and therefore they literally cannot explain the reason an object does what it does. So when you say "you can measure it" what in the hell are you talking about? "Mass" is literally a measurement of matter.
So when you say "you can measure it" You're already referring to a measurement. That's what I don't get. I can measure a measurement? You're saying nothing of use bro.

>Then you should go look at one instead of crying about it not being explained sufficiently to you.
You said "cars exist" and then expected me to explain to you what a car is. Which is basically the same backwards ass logic you've been using in explaining mass.

>Where did you ask how mass comes into existence?
"you can measure it" tells me it exists right? If it exists, can you even tell me how it exists? No that's not a "too deep for u" question, just explain how a measurement can be a real thing that exists. It literally makes no sense.

>Either way, it exists.
And you can't even tell me "what it is". You're fallacy is giving meaning and existence to something that literally does not exist.

Imagine shilling for the approved narrative when it isn't even plausible.

>>11438678
What is the plausible narrative? That Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his chariot?

>>11436521
Only a century late

>>11438700
How about electromagnetic diodes on a geocentric model?

Which is what every flat earther knows the sun and moon are.

>>11437820
>the speed of light is not constant.
???

>>11436521
fuck off CIA.

"Interstellar" was a shit movie.

>>11436521

Gravity is an average toward a mean. Fullstop. This is the conclusion when we view the Universe not through our senses, but through the lense of pure data.

Gravity has trouble reaching that average since the universe has infinite depth and scope, therefore, two average data points have difficulty reaching the middle.

By the way, were you aware that physics is unified?

>>11438511
>Oh, so you must have a better explanation, I can't wait to hear it.
>Space is a posterior attribute.
>Of what?
Do schizo anons ever have substance to back their garbage ideas?

>>11439055
I know it's hard for you to wrap your head around geometry anon.
if you have one point then you have no distance.
Which means distance can only be after there is a second point.
The same simple truth goes for space if there are no things in three dimensional relation then there is no space.
An empty space can not exist.
Space is only a measurement of the 3rd dimension.
Making space independent is an imposition.

But it seems you don't worry about the foundation of the hypothesis you choose to believe.

Don't worry anon all opposition to GRH is just antisemitic foolery

Gravity doesn't exist.
Just as a ripple doesn't exist in water. It only appears when water is displaced.

>>11438505
the map is not the territory anon

>>11440143
What? I read this like 5 times and I still can’t tell what you’re trying to say.

what if gravity and dark energy are just two sides of the same coin, like electricity and magnetism, and we just haven't discovered the true nature of their relationship yet?

What if mass (and thereby gravity) is simply some form of condensed dark energy? Clumps of dark energy? I mean by definition dark energy is a constant energy density but what if there's some freak mechanism (which maybe only existed during inflation) out there allowing for it to condense a little bit? What if we've got GR all backwards and it turns out that distorted space time creates mass/energy, not that mass/energy distorts space time?

>DISCLAIMER: I'm actually retarded and don't know what I'm talking about

>>11440182
>I know it's hard for you to wrap your head around geometry anon.
I guess I was wrong
>I read this like 5 times and I still can’t tell what you’re trying to say.
It's impossible for you.
Or maybe I am unable to explain this to you, then do yourself a favor and read people smarter than you and me.
sauce
"100 Autoren gegen Einstein"
Oliver Heaviside
Charles Proteus Steinmetz
Oleg D. Jefimenko
A theory of natural philosophy, Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich

>>11436521
Just throwing out a suggestion here:
There is no gravity.
There are no forces.
There are no physical laws at all.
This is all purely speculation, obviously, but I wonder if it could be more likely we live in a universe where quantum fluctuations arbitrarily place particles where they are and move them to where they go without any guiding laws or principles, than the idea that we emerged with a very specific set of laws, constants and values for those constants out of an uncountably infinite different number of possible laws and values. That idea becomes even more difficult to fathom if you believe in eternal inflation, which presumes that every universe all the way down would have similar enough laws to allow for inflation and the formation of new universes: seemingly without cause or explanation despite that being infinitely unlikely.
Arbitrarity is much more convincing if you also accept that the only way we would be able to consciously think about the universe is if we did live in one of the incredibly rare timelines where all particles were in the right position for it. All of the rest of the universes could be discounted easily.
If you believe that time and our experiences have to be more than a single instant long: alright, perhaps all futures timelines which aren’t predisposed to observation collapse and only futures that can be observed are useful to talk about.

>>11436521
it's just shit falling to the ground, who cares

>>11440281
Based

>>11440179
The map is the only thing you know about the territory. Saying the map is wrong without a better map is foolish.

>>11438663
>if it's "of gravity" then I refer to "gravity" this alleged "force" belongs to, like in my original question.
Then your question makes no sense, since you have not specified what about gravity at the center of the earth you want described.

>"No"
Yes.

>You're confusing a measurement for a property such as "Hot" and "cold".
Where did I say anything about measurement? Explain what "hot" and "cold" are without description or relation.

>Measurements don't exist
Then how are measurements done? You're retarded.

>therefore they literally cannot explain the reason an object does what it does.
I never said they do, illiterate retard.

>"Mass" is literally a measurement of matter.
No, it's a property of matter that you can measure. You are confusing measurement with what's being measured.

>You said "cars exist" and then expected me to explain to you what a car is.
No I didn't, illiterate retard.

>"you can measure it" tells me it exists right?
Yes, how do you measure what doesn't exist?

>If it exists, can you even tell me how it exists? No that's not a "too deep for u" question, just explain how a measurement can be a real thing that exists.
Nonsense question. Explain how your dick can be a real thing that exists.

>And you can't even tell me "what it is".
I did, you just don't like the answer. Keep crying about shit that's empirically verifiable.

>>11438857
Sorry that's not plausible. Try again.

>>11440388
>Then your question makes no sense,
Why? Pretty simple really.You stating gravity is a force also doesn't make sense. Lets sit here and just talk of no use then I guess.

>Yes.
No. Otherwise describing a painting would explain how and why it was created. You can't just sit and point at something expecting it to explain itself.

>Then how are measurements done? You're retarded.
The "standard of measure" is completely arbitrary you fucking idiot. If you were and actual scientist you would understand that the subdivisions OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT EXISTS is not "something it and of itself". It's like saying "an inch exists". An inch of what? What the fuck are you speaking about?

>Where did I say anything about measurement?
>No, it's a property of matter that you can measure. You are confusing measurement with what's being measured.

"Mass" is not a thing in and of itself, which you seem to be confusing it as. It's a measure of "matter"; the "thing " that can be shown to exist. Unless of course you would actually like to explain to me what mass is, something you STILL have not done.

>Explain what "hot" and "cold" are without description or relation.
An explanation can use several descriptions, what is it that you're trying to prove exactly? What if I cannot explain one without the other?

>No I didn't, illiterate retard.
You literally did, sorry I'm losing you.

>Yes, how do you measure what doesn't exist?
You can measure whatever the fuck you want, however you want. It's arbitrary, that's what "arbitrary" implies.
>Explain how your dick can be a real thing that exists.
I can test it in a scientific experiment

>Keep crying about shit that's empirically verifiable.
So test "mass" and "gravity" in a scientific experiment. You can try "space" too if you want.

>>11440420
anon, you're just doing sophistry again. you have lots of words here but they're all kinda nonsense that hovers around the idea "mass does not exist". however your argument seems to be something related to semantics of "exist" like only material objects exist but quantities derived from them don't exist.

okay then, you're making some philosophical argument along the lines "numbers do not exist" or "society does not exist". this kind of philosopher masturbation is annoying.

for scientists, mass "exists" because it is easily measured and it is practical and it is an essential ingredient in theories that accurately describe the world. it just works and is manifestly obvious to most people who don't go on philosophical masturbation marathons. so either stop bitching or go restart your argument on >>>/his/ or >>>/lit/

>>11440143
>if you have one point then you have no distance.
You have a distance of 0.

>The same simple truth goes for space if there are no things in three dimensional relation then there is no space.
That doesn't follow. It's like saying if there is nothing in a box to count then the box doesn't exist.

>An empty space can not exist.
Why not?

>Space is only a measurement of the 3rd dimension.
It's not a measure and the third dimension is part of space.

>Making space independent is an imposition.
On what?

>>11440471
>You have a distance of 0.
big brain moment
>Why not?
empty space has nothing in it right?
So there nothing
how big is nothing?
it doesn't have a size or it's 0
>That doesn't follow. It's like saying if there is nothing in a box to count then the box doesn't exist.
Space is not a box it is only an imaginary box.

>>11436521
gravity is the non locality of time

there i said it

>>11440390
For you, brainlet sheep

>>11440420
>Why? Pretty simple really.
You didn't explain what about gravity at the center of the earth you want described.

>You stating gravity is a force also doesn't make sense.
Why not?

>Otherwise describing a painting would explain how and why it was created.
You fail at basic logic. I said explanations are descriptions, not descriptions are explanations. You didn't ask how and why mass was created but you demand it because this is how a retarded sophist operates.

>The "standard of measure" is completely arbitrary you fucking idiot.
How does that respond to my question? Try to read instead of spouting your canned schizo responses.

>If you were and actual scientist you would understand that the subdivisions OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT EXISTS is not "something it and of itself".
Where did I say it was, illiterate retard?

>It's like saying "an inch exists".
An inch is a unit, not a measurement. An inch of something is a measurement. Retard.

>"Mass" is not a thing in and of itself, which you seem to be confusing it as.
What property is "a thing in and of itself" moron?

>It's a measure of "matter"; the "thing " that can be shown to exist.
It's a property of matter, not a measure.

>Unless of course you would actually like to explain to me what mass is, something you STILL have not done.
I did, you just didn't like the answer.

>An explanation can use several descriptions, what is it that you're trying to prove exactly?
No, descriptions are not explanations as you so astutely argued.

>What if I cannot explain one without the other?
Then I guess hot and cold don't exist, according to your own retarded standards.

>You literally did, sorry I'm losing you.
If I literally did then you would have quoted me doing so. You didn't, because you just make this shit up.

>You can measure whatever the fuck you want, however you want.
No, I can't. Making up a measurement is not the same as measuring something.

>>11440420
>I can test it in a scientific experiment
You can do the same with mass and gravity. I guess that settles that.

>So test "mass" and "gravity" in a scientific experiment.

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

>inb4 "REEEEEE THOSE ARE JUST MEASUREMENTS REEEEE" while the retard doesn't realize all he can do is measure his dick
I will laugh every time you make a post denying your own dick exists.

>>11440485
>empty space has nothing in it right?
>So there nothing
>how big is nothing?
But space is not nothing, it's space. You see how easy it is to point out your sophistry? You started with empty space and then tried to call it nothing, begging the question.

As to your question, if I imagine an apple, how's big is it? You can't answer, because I didn't give you enough information. That's all. It doesn't mean apples don't exist.

>Space is not a box it is only an imaginary box.
I didn't say it was a box, it's an analogy.

>>11440497
Nope, still not plausible. Try again. Funny how you can't respond to your own sophistry thrown back at you.

>>11440522
EUtard BTFO twice

>>11440437
>anon, you're just doing sophistry again.
>rest of his post is talking unrelated semantics instead of answering questions
Nice

>however your argument seems to be something related to semantics of "exist" like only material objects exist but quantities derived from them don't exist.
"Measurements" do not exist as something in reality. They are recordings of what exists. If you don't understand that then you need to go back to 1st grade and figure it out. I suggest you start with this thing called a "ruler" and then work your way up from there.
Either that or you can explain to me how "mass" is not a measurement of "matter" and "what matter does", and is actually something discrete in reality that you can test in a scientific experiment. If not, then I fail to see how I can even talk semantics about it. It is literally "not" something to be discussed and I won't bother discussing it further, which is actually preferable.

>okay then, you're making some philosophical argument along the lines "numbers do not exist" or "society does not exist". this kind of philosopher masturbation is annoying.
Which is why I am asking you to test it in a scientific experiment or show one to me, if you wouldn't mind.

>>11440566
all i see here is a double-down on your philosophical retard argument that "mass does not exist".

did you ignore this part of my post?
>for scientists, mass "exists" because it is easily measured and it is practical and it is an essential ingredient in theories that accurately describe the world. it just works and is manifestly obvious to most people who don't go on philosophical masturbation marathons. so either stop bitching or go restart your argument on >>>/his/ or >>>/lit/

honestly, if you are nitpicking about philosophical subtleties, then you are completely not a person equipped to talk science. science is a practical thing and arguing semantics over what "exists" is stupid.

the fact is that the concept of mass is basically one of the most useful, widespread, practical, predictive, and fundamental ideas of physics. arguing about whether or not it "exists" in some abstract sense is like arguing to the Fed Reserve Chairman that "actually the economy doesn't exist". maybe you can make that argument in a useless philosophical context but it gets noone nowhere and is the opposite of practical, useful, productive thinking

>>11436521
I dont think thebproblem is gravity, but the lack of a theory of quantum gravity. I.E. this thread needs to figure out how gravity works at small scales.

>>11440539
It's very plausible that you are a brainlet sheep. Denying this shows your true hubris.

I had some compelling evidence for my first point, but I changed my phone service provider and lost it.

I tried to do some research by finding my old resources. They were all scrubbed. Nothing. Besides finding that all compelling evidence has been erased, there are 30k articles for normies about why "the flat earth theory is wrong".

You realize shilling exists?

Why would they shill?
Because they don't want anyone to know their secret. Because they're in too deep.

The establishment, whoever that may be, is shilling against flat earth. You have to realize this.

>>11440582
Nope, still not plausible. Whatever you believe doesn't exist. Everything you say is arbitrary. Try again.

>>11440535
>But space is not nothing, it's space. You see how easy it is to point out your sophistry?

Holy shit, just stop. I'm getting sick off this circular logic ride.

>You can't answer, because I didn't give you enough information. That's all. It doesn't mean apples don't exist.
"apples" have been empirically testable. Where is this "space" to be tested?

>I didn't say it was a box, it's an analogy.
>this somehow proves space is something

>>11440522
>You can do the same with mass and gravity. I guess that settles that.
>you can test a measurement
>you can test an acceleration

Nice, so how do you test those "things"? Do we start by putting them in a vacuum chamber?

>I will laugh every time you make a post denying your own dick exists.
My dick is testable. It is measurable. How do you measure a measurement? You're dumb as bricks bro.
When you go to a hardware store and ask for a "foot", do you have an autistic shitfit at every employee who replies "of what" to you?

>>11440590
Lmao @ the literal brainlet sheep.

You don't have true logic.

>>11440535
wooosh, this is the sound of the explanation going over your head.
space can only be defined when you have prior object as reference points.
If there is nothing your space is indefinable.
Space can have any size and shape you want you can draw a box around the solar system and start measuring everything inside it, that does not make this imaginary box a real thing that has influence on the solar system.
It's imaginary.

>>11440582
>>>/x/

>>11440597
>Holy shit, just stop. I'm getting sick off this circular logic ride.
The only one who used circular logic is you. But I'm glad you're abandoning your sophistry.

>"apples" have been empirically testable.
So is space.

>Where is this "space" to be tested?
Only a massive idiot would fail to realize that the question of where something is only makes sense if space exists.

>I didn't say it was a box, it's an analogy.
>this somehow proves space is something
Pathetic strawman. The analogy disproves your faulty logic.

>you can test a measurement
Mass and gravity are not measurements.

>you can test an acceleration
Why not, retard?

>Nice, so how do you test those "things"?
The article I linked explains the experiment. Why are you asking questions you already have the answer to? Is your intent to waste as much of my time as possible?

>My dick is testable. It is measurable.
Your dick is a measurement, it doesn't exist.

>How do you measure a measurement?
How do you measure your dick?

>When you go to a hardware store and ask for a "foot", do you have an autistic shitfit at every employee who replies "of what" to you?
No, why would I? Didn't I just explain to you the difference between a unit and a measurement? Again, try reading instead of spouting your canned schizo responses.

>>11440609
you are reciting Mach afaict. even Einstein acknowledged (after saying a lot of stuff to the contrary, but he came around eventually) that Mach was inconsistent with GR. GR admits empty universes just fine

>>11440600
You're not even trying to make your theories plausible, because you know it's all bullshit. Thanks for outing yourself, shill.

>>11440573
>for scientists, mass "exists" because it is easily measured
It's a measurement. It "exists" as an idea.

>and it is practical and it is an essential ingredient in theories that accurately describe the world.
"This fancy description is in no way different than that of a bum describing something. Why? Because we never explained what it is that we're talking about accurately enough. We just point and described what we saw in terms we agreed on"

>it just works and is manifestly obvious to most people who don't go on philosophical masturbation marathons. so either stop bitching or go restart your argument on >>>/his/ or >>>/lit/
"We can't explain it to you because we couldn't even explain it to ourselves in a way that makes sense. So instead we just agree with each other and continue describing in terms that only we understand".

>honestly, if you are nitpicking about philosophical subtleties, then you are completely not a person equipped to talk science. science is a practical thing and arguing semantics over what "exists" is stupid.
>the fact is that the concept of mass is basically one of the most useful, widespread, practical, predictive, and fundamental ideas of physics. arguing about whether or not it "exists" in some abstract sense is like arguing to the Fed Reserve Chairman that "actually the economy doesn't exist". maybe you can make that argument in a useless philosophical context but it gets noone nowhere and is the opposite of practical, useful, productive thinking

>"no anon, 4 kg is something"

yeah but can you tell me what it is?

>>11440622
more sophistry.

the point is that if it works it works. and if it works there is no sense in denying it. it’s there. arguing about the “existence” of concepts that go into ideas that objectively work is just an exercise in flapping one’s mouth.

>>11440609
>space can only be defined when you have prior object as reference points.
Why?

>If there is nothing your space is indefinable.
Why?

>Space can have any size and shape you want you can draw a box around the solar system and start measuring everything inside it, that does not make this imaginary box a real thing that has influence on the solar system.
If you are talking about hypotheticals then yes. If you are talking about empirical reality then no. None of this shows space is imaginary, you just assumed that from the start when that is what you were supposed to show. The simple fact that hundreds of years of empirical observations confirm theories of space disproves your position. To counter this mountain of evidence you offer nothing but circular logic and pathetic sophistry. You lose, thanks for playing.

>>11440616
>The only one who used circular logic is you.
"space is space"
>So is space.
So point to it. Contain it so that I may observe it. Oh wait, by your logic it just defines itself right? "It's just space!"

>Only a massive idiot would fail to realize that the question of where something is only makes sense if space exists.
Only a massive idiot would assume something is in a specific place based on euclidean geometry alone.

>Pathetic strawman. The analogy disproves your faulty logic.
It doesn't prove anything because an analogy is a comparison. Between things that is, not something itself.

>Mass and gravity are not measurements.
What *are* they?

>Why not, retard?
>When I run faster I become something else entirely discrete

>Your dick is a measurement, it doesn't exist.
Now you're arguing semantics.

>How do you measure your dick?
With a standard of measure...

>>11440627

>the point is that if it works it works.
>again with the circular logic

>and if it works there is no sense in denying it
This is a math and science board.

>>11440611
Unironically/x/ has higher avg IQ than /sci/

>>11436521

Guys I dont know if I it will make sense I am a brainlet.
But what if time is some sort of motion on a grand universe scale we dont yet fully understand, like shit in a whirlpool sticking together, and maybe in others parts of the universe matter cant actually stick together and flows in other ways. Making the universe just an odd stablish occurrence in a certain part of space time.

>>11440620
a nothing can't exist.
Einstein is wrong GR is a scam.
It's so ridiculous, GR permits timetravel that alone should tell you that there is a fundamental flaw in the hypothesis.

The fundamental problem is that making posterior attributes be casual effects is just wrong and can't lead to a correct explanation of reality.

>>11440632
>Why?
Without references your space can have no to all imaginary attributes. If something can be nothing and all, you are not talking about real things it's pure metaphysics.

>>11440639
>again with the circular logic
no, that's not circular. A=A is the principle of identity, and is not circular

>>and if it works there is no sense in denying it
>This is a math and science board.
in math and science, if you have an idea that goes against a working idea, usually you need to supply a better, more practical/useful/predictive idea in its place. you don't progress in science or math by denying working theories alone. you progress by proposing something that is better in a verifiable way. you have proposed exactly 0, actually probably a negative number of proposals since you think throwing out the baby with the bathwater along with the entire house seems to be a good idea

>>11440655
>Einstein is wrong GR is a scam. It's so ridiculous, GR permits timetravel
no, solutions to the einstein equations permit time travel but the theory of GR is based on the principle of causality. so time travel is an assumption of GR that rules out solutions that are inconsistent with that. a similar idea in GR is that there is only one time dimension. the einstein field equations could be formulated in 0 or 2+ time dimensions but that violates the principles of the theory

>>11440635
>"space is space"
Who are you quoting?

>So point to it.
OK, I'm pointing to it. Doesn't matter where since space is everywhere. What does pointing even mean without space? Pointing means you are referring to a location or direction. What are those without space? Like a complete moron, you don't realize that your own argument already admits what you're trying and failing to argue against. Please post more, you're a complete joke.

>Only a massive idiot would assume something is in a specific place based on euclidean geometry alone.
Nothing I said implied Euclidean geometry. You just spout irrelevant gibberish whenever you're confronted with something you can't respond to. Let's try again: what does "where" mean without space?

>It doesn't prove anything because an analogy is a comparison.
Non sequitur. The comparison disproves your logic, because it shows that your logic leads to absurdities like "a box doesn't exist if it's empty." Instead of explaining the relevant difference between a box and space you make up strawmen and cry about analogies.

>What *are* they?
Mass is a property and gravity is a phenomenon.

>When I run faster I become something else entirely discrete
Oh no, you're devolving into schizo gibberish again.

>Now you're arguing semantics.
That means your entire argument is semantics.

>With a standard of measure...
Same as with space.

>>11440655
>Without references your space can have no to all imaginary attributes.
What's in or not space has nothing to do with that. You set up a hypothetical empty space without specifying its size and then act as if it's unspecified size means anything. This is the same as saying that my hypothetical apple's unspecified size means something. It doesn't. Are you capable of responding to this or are you just going to repeat the same canned schizo response?

>If something can be nothing and all
How is space nothing at all? You assume it is because that's what you want to argue. This is is circular logic.

if matter is required to for gravity to act upon it to bend spacetime, what happens at the center of a large enough black hole when the matter is compressed to the point it is no longer matter, but only energy, how does gravity keep space time bent so that the energy can not escape and the black hole remains.

>>11440662
>so time travel is an assumption of GR that rules out solutions that are inconsistent with that.
sorry typo here, i meant:
> so causality is an assumption of GR that rules out solutions that are inconsistent with that. (in other words, the assumption of causality in GR rules out time travel)

>>11440710
A black hole is a big nucleon
Says me faggot

Space is brainlet cope.

>>11440668
>Who are you quoting?
>literally says an elaborate version of "space is space" the same thing in his next paragraph.

>OK, I'm pointing to it. Doesn't matter where since space is everywhere. What does pointing even mean without space? Pointing means you are referring to a location or direction. What are those without space? Like a complete moron, you don't realize that your own argument already admits what you're trying and failing to argue against. Please post more, you're a complete joke.t.

"hurr you're pointing proves that space exists" is not proof whatsoever. You're just using circular logic and everything else to define "space".

>Mass is a property and gravity is a phenomenon.
And descriptions still are not explanations.

>Oh no, you're devolving into schizo gibberish again.
You said acceleration was something measurable, now you say that that idea is schizo garbage? I agree, because acceleration is a measurement in and of itself.

That means your entire argument is semantics.
Ok boomer

>Same as with space.
Okay, go measure space and tell me how big it is. What temperature is it? How much volume does it have? What is outside it that you can't count as a part of it?

>>11440923
>>literally says an elaborate version of "space is space" the same thing in his next paragraph.
I don't think you understand what "literally" means. You seem to have trouble with the English language in general.

>"hurr you're pointing proves that space exists" is not proof whatsoever.
Then why can't you explain what pointing is without space?

>You're just using circular logic
Where?

>And descriptions still are not explanations.
You asked what mass and gravity are if not measurements. What exactly do you want explained?

>You said acceleration was something measurable, now you say that that idea is schizo garbage?
You are confusing the meaningful phrase "acceleration is measurable" with the schizo gibberish "When I run faster I become something else entirely discrete." Do you see any differences between the two or are you truly delusional?

>I agree, because acceleration is a measurement in and of itself.
It's not. It's pretty hilarious that you still don'tr understand what a measurement is after all this time.

>Ok boomer
Great, so you agree your entire argument is semantics. We've really made a lot of progress.

>Okay, go measure space and tell me how big it is.
OK, which space do you want to measure? There's a lot of it.

>What temperature is it?
What do you think temperature is?

> How much volume does it have?
Again, you're going to have to tell me which space you want to measure.

>What is outside it that you can't count as a part of it?
Why do you think it has an outside?

>>11440993
>Then why can't you explain what pointing is without space?
Pointing is an action. Actions are not things.

>You asked what mass and gravity are if not measurements. What exactly do you want explained?
Saying they have properties doesn't magically make it have them. Nor does calling something a phenomena make it one. A shadow for instance can be measured as having both, even though it is not actually something with properties.

>You are confusing the meaningful phrase "acceleration is measurable" with the schizo gibberish "When I run faster I become something else entirely discrete."
Well then explain what acceleration is. If you measure it it's something to be measured right?

>It's not. It's pretty hilarious that you still don'tr understand what a measurement is after all this time.
Well you're not helping are you? Explain it to me.

>Great, so you agree your entire argument is semantics.
You have not given me something of substance to argue. I cannot argue semantics about something neither of us can even prove exists.

OK, which space do you want to measure?
There's more than one now? It's bad enough you can't even tell me where one is.

>There's a lot of it.
So now it changes quantity on a dime?

>What do you think temperature is?
>Complains when semantics are argued yet happily engages in it himself.
Not what I asked

>Again, you're going to have to tell me which space you want to measure.
Prove to me that even one of these alleged spaces is measurable.

>Why do you think it has an outside?
So it's not something discrete? If it has no bounds then how the fuck are you measuring it and classifying it as something?

>>11441103
>Pointing is an action. Actions are not things.
How the fuck do you think that responds to the question? Do you even read the posts you're replying to, or do you just post random sentences? Let's try again: why can't you explain what pointing is without space?

>Saying they have properties doesn't magically make it have them.
What is they? Where did I say that? Illiterate retard.

>Nor does calling something a phenomena make it one.
You ask what something is and then complain about it. As I've already said, the reality of mass, gravity, and everything else is proven by hundreds of years of scientific observations confirming them. You're response is to just ignore this and present no evidence of your own. You lose every time you do this.

>A shadow for instance can be measured as having both, even though it is not actually something with properties.
But it is.

>Well then explain what acceleration is.
The rate of change of the velocity of something over time.

>Well you're not helping are you? Explain it to me.
Acceleration is a rate of change while a measurement of acceleration is a number representing that rate of change, derived from observation. We can talk about acceleration without measuring it.

>You have not given me something of substance to argue.
Nice projection. You have all of science to argue against. You have countered with zero substance.

>There's more than one now?
Do you really think being an obtuse retard is helping you?

>It's bad enough you can't even tell me where one is.
What's bad is you can't even explain what "where" means without space, yet you continue to ask about it.

>Complains when semantics are argued yet happily engages in it himself.
What semantics are you talking about? What do you think temperature is?

>Prove to me that even one of these alleged spaces is measurable.
Take a ruler out and measure the amount space between two things. Done.

>>11441103
>So it's not something discrete?
What does discreteness have to do with having an outside?

>If it has no bounds then how the fuck are you measuring it and classifying it as something?
The layers of idiotic misconceptions in your post is tiresome. Being boundless does not stop local measurement and characterization. Having bounds does not imply an outside.

>>11436521
>>11437779
>>11437786
plebs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyKHF5KdWVA

>>11441210

>What is they? Where did I say that?
You're saying that mass..a measurement of matter, has properties. It doesn't, it's a measurement.

>As I've already said, the reality of mass, gravity, and everything else is proven by hundreds of years of scientific observations confirming them.
by science standards, they don't know the cause of mass and gravity other than "matter and what it does" so ultimately you're just talking about matter.

>But it is.
"no"

>Acceleration is a rate of change
so it's not something in an of itself

>We can talk about acceleration without measuring it.
You can talk about anything without measuring it. Doesn't make it magically exist.

>Nice projection. You have all of science to argue against. You have countered with zero substance.
>continues to talk about space, the thing you never proved to exist

>Do you really think being an obtuse retard is helping you?
You're the only one suggesting there is more than 2 spaces

>Take a ruler out and measure the amount space between two things. Done.
>one again defines space with itself

What is it of substance that you are measuring?"between the two points" tells me you are actively not measuring something that is something, just the distance between what is real. You then call this distance something itself, which is a fallacy.

>>11437779
Do you want to say it's DENSITY?

>>11437828
Cause they're not fucking real
C is as fast as information can go. End of the discyssion

Gravity doesnt exist m8.

>>11440674
>You set up a hypothetical empty space without specifying its size
You silly brainlet without reference points there is no size.
You are still unable to wrap your head around the simple fact that without reference points there is no expansion.
The distance from point A to B is 1m
The distance from point A to point A is 0 and it can only be 0.
And here is empty space for you.
The distance from no point to no point is?

>>11441226
based and jefimenko pilled

>>11438579
You are a retard