/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11725910
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Okay show me a model that shows all these experiments with better precision.

Spacetime ain't real because space ain't real.

>>11725925
>ERT provides a valid mathematical framework for some applications
>>11725946
You're dumb but not as dumb as people that unironically believe in ERT.

>>11725910
protip. The people who control the presses (of all kinds including those that go brrrrrr) and the force supporting them, have teams of people just maming up fake bullshit to distract you. Yes, relativity is one. But so is their double slit and eraser bullshit. They have both sides of the pie. They is virtually nothing they say, beyond the most elementary obvious shit, that is true. The average person is so brainwashed that I could explain reality to them with perfect logic and patience and they still would not believe it. I know that for a fact.

>>11725910
protip. The people who control the presses (of all kinds including those that go brrrrrr) and the force supporting them, have teams of people just making up fake bullshit to distract you. Yes, relativity is one of their lies. But so is their double slit and quantum eraser bullshit. They have both sides of the pie in this argument. There is virtually nothing they say, beyond the most elementary obvious shit, that is true. The average person is so brainwashed that I could explain reality to them with perfect logic and patience and they still would not believe it. I know that for a fact.

>>11725963
>I could explain reality to them with perfect logic and patience
Explain it to me.

>>11725910
>ERT provides a valid mathematical framework for some applications but does not accurately describe reality.
Which is literally the definition of science.
You are a troll so understandably you have to spout bullshit to keep playing the act, but for other less savvy anons: literally all scientific theories describe the reality with some finite precision. Sometimes even the Newton's theory is just fine accuracy-wise - nobody sane will argue that it's shit because it doesn't represent the reality accurately.
I am 80/20 for the thread being a thinly veiled IQ thread, as is tradition on this brainlet board.

>>11726015
>Which is literally the definition of science.
Are you fucking retarded? ERT doesn't just say "these equations produce valid mathematical results", it says "these equations produce valid mathematical results, and this is why" ("this" being that the objective nature of reality has certain characteristics such as relativity of simultaneity).

>>11726015
And to expand on last post
>Newton's theory is fine accuracy-wise sometimes
Yeah sometimes it does produce valid mathematical results, like ERT. That doesn't mean it correctly describes reality, just like ERT doesn't. Tard.

>>11726019
>"these equations produce valid mathematical results, and this is why"
Which is par for the course for the scientific method. Your highschool-level demagogy won't work, pal.

>>11726022
>That doesn't mean it correctly describes reality,
Nobody claimed that it did. At least nobody who is a professional researcher and not just a monkey who watches popsci videos like you.

>>11726022
>>11726019
strawmanning hard here, lol
OP missed centuries of development of the philosophy and methodology of science
/sci/ has the best retards

>>11725987

First tell me if you agree with these statements: the Universe is locally interacting, 4 dimentional, energy conserving, symmetrical, consistent. Ask if you need clarifying on what I mean.

>>11726019
>what is science

>>11726031
>Nobody claimed that it did. At least nobody who is a professional researcher and not just a monkey who watches popsci videos like you.
I don't watch videos and I sure as hell didn't claim it accurately describes reality. But yes,other people including many/most professors absolutely do claim that relativity accurately describes objective reality.
>>11726087
retard
>>11726042
By locally interacting you mean that there is no non-local interaction within the universe? I don't necessarily agree or disagree with those statements because I don't think we have enough knowledge of science or philosophy to say for sure, but I am inclined to disagree with the universe being 4-dimensional. The universe is 3-dimensional. Time is completely different from space.

>>11726163
>By locally interacting you mean that there is no non-local interaction within the universe? I don't necessarily agree or disagree with those statements because I don't think we have enough knowledge of science or philosophy to say for sure,

Cool beans then I hope you enjoy spending 10s of billions over decades while they diagnose what should be obvious, that our material universe is a locally interacting particle-wave system.

but I am inclined to disagree with the universe being 4-dimensional. The universe is 3-dimensional. Time is completely different from space.))

We are playing semantics here. Yes I know time is a construct, all that exists is now, blah blah blah. What I mean by time is that the Universe has a calculation speed, c.

>>11726163
>>11726174

The point is, ask yourself, what is the simplest possible computational model that satisifies these qualities. You say locality might not be real and yet you can only develop a program that is local. Period. I am not asking you to be God, I am asking you to simulate reality as best as you humanly can. What does that look like to you?

>>11726174
I am not saying time doesn't exist, just that it's unique from space
>>11726179
Something like RuneScape I guess

Jesus fuck what's up with these schizo threads popping up all over the board all of the sudden?

He does have a point.
Everything we experience is 3d.
Yet there are scientists saying there's like 11 dimensions.
Yet if you ask them if there's extra dimensional beings they act like you're talking nonsense.
So which is it?
Are there extra dimensional beings or is the universe 3 dimensional?

>>11726442
/pol/tards trying to be scienterrific

>>11726445
the existence of extra dimensions does not preclude the existence of "beings" just like the existence of ice cream does not preclude the existence of tiny ice cream men who swim around in your mouth and jack off on your taste buds

>>11725963
<-----/x/
Conspiracy theories really belong over there.

Give it a try -- at the moment it is a bit "Summer" over there, but they often have pretty decent debates on some weird ass shit; they are not JUST a bunch of credulous retards who agree with anything posted.

>>11726087
Baby don't observe, measure and draw conclusions from me...

>>11725910
is aeter real? :o

>>11726163
>But yes,other people including many/most professors absolutely do claim that relativity accurately describes objective reality.

You don't seem to have a citation. Here, borrow mine.

>>11726442
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6zo05tcQA

>>11726445
You are thinking of string theory, which is yet to be proven. It states that our universe has 10 or 11 dimensions: 3 space, 1 time, and 6-7 compactified special once. Think of it like paper: most consider it 2-dimensional, but it actually has width, it's just so small that it doesn't matter as much. Same with the string theory, our 4D universe has additional some Ds of negligible width. And even they actually exist, no being could fit in them.

>>11726477
ah yes, the curled up dimensions. in all fairness it does sound like big scientific COPE

>>11726482
To an extent, it is. I don't know the exact details, but I heard some calculations required an 11D universe, so a scientist proposed the existence of undetectable multidimensional folds in space. It can't be disproven, and thus cannot be discarded. I'm neutral on the topic, since I don't nearly enough to formulate an opinion. Time will tell.

>>11726482
String theory is just a hypothesis that is overwhelmingly overlooked by the majority of physics community. The only people that care about it are the ones who actually do research in that field. It apparently has some interesting mathematical properties and seems to be the path of least resistence for gravity unification and that's why people still research it. The issue it still has after decades of research however result in it's failure.

>>11725963
We built a double slit experiment in a lab during undergrad you dumb fucking retard

>>11726495
you replied to me, this is what I understand of it too, like they did some math and it only worked or it looked very neat at a certain specific number of dimensions. Sometimes I wish I would be arsed to spend the effort to understand the math of how and why the fuck they would come to such a conclusion.

true, 1 of the KEY mega players!

>>11726564<<4chan.org

>>11726538
Our high-school physics teacher showed us the double slit experiment with a laser and some diffraction gratings. It's not hard at all.

>>11726574
Then why were you claiming it's made up bullshit?

>>11726595
I'm not the guy you replied to, I'm backing you up on your statement.

>>11726600
OH my bad, thanks yo

>>11725925
Now show the experiment that confirms Einsteins Velocity Composition law (the GPS meme).

>>11725946
Yeah but you forgot about "time". Which also isn't real.

>>117260
>if you agree with these statements: the Universe is locally interacting, 4 dimentional, energy conserving, symmetrical, consistent. Ask if you need clarifying on what I mean.
Explain how the universe runs on euclidian geometry with the inclusion of another tacked on "dimension".

>>11726174
>Cool beans then I hope you enjoy spending 10s of billions over decades while they diagnose what should be obvious, that our material universe is a locally interacting particle-wave system.
Lol what kind of moron would do that? Especially with no empirical evidence to base the "obvious" on. I thought the light was supposed to be neither.

>We are playing semantics here. Yes I know time is a construct, all that exists is now, blah blah blah. What I mean by time is that the Universe has a calculation speed, c.
If time doesn't exist then the model falls flat on its ass. You now have a fancy description that is one step above a homeless persons. It correctly describes what doesn't exist, which makes it "correct" because it's just a description.

>>11726179
>what is the simplest possible computational model that satisifies these qualities.
>The universe computes

>>11726163

>Time is completely different from space.
Yes please elaborate on how you're comparing two ideas that have no properties or basis in reality.

>>11725947
Where does ERT mode fall flat? Show me an experiment that shows the model doesn’t reflect reality.

>>11727256
So you want tests of special relativity sure here you go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

>>11727281
>So you want tests of special relativity
No. In fact, I never had to ask because you literally reposted the same link I quoted. Why don't you try rereading my post.

>>11727327
One was for general relativity one for special relativity. You were asking for Einstein velocity composition which is part of special relativity. You are so retarded it blows my mind.

>Einstein is wrong bro. Trust me, he's wrong. Just trust me. Here are some words to prove my point.

Man, schizophrenia is so fucking scary. Imagine if you were a total fucking loony and you had no way of knowing it.

>>11727355
>One was for general relativity one for special relativity.
>You were asking for Einstein velocity composition which is part of special relativity.
AND????

>You are so retarded it blows my mind.
For what? No go on, please explain why what I did was wrong.

>>11727437
first off you said
>you literally reposted the same link I quoted.
this was your first point of failure. you thought i posted the general relativity link again. which i didnt. then acted really smug and thought i misread what you wrote when in fact YOU DID. excellent retard smug move dude. plus the fact you think relativity is wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity you can find the experiments that show the GPS meme as you call it. basically you are retarded.

>>11725910
Can you stop posting these bait threads please? They're boring. Thanks.

>>11726448
A lot of people on /pol/ take skepticism of soft science in the name of preventing jewish influence and try to apply it to the hard sciences. It's baffling and they are retarded.
t. /pol/tard

>>11727449
>you thought i posted the general relativity link again.
My mistake, I stand corrected and misread this post. You simply posted another link that had nothing to do with what I asked for.

>then acted really smug and thought i misread what you wrote when in fact YOU DID
If I came off as smug then whatever. I genuinely thought you posted the same link twice. Still doesn't matter at the end of the day because both links are not what I asked for so you may in fact still be misreading what I posted.

>this was your first point of failure.
What anime villain are you roleplaying?

>excellent retard smug move dude. plus the fact you think relativity is wrong.
See now you're being the smug retard. I never said that, I said descriptions are correct. They're descriptions after all, how can they be wrong?

>u can find the experiments that show the GPS meme as you call it. basically you are retarded.
>does not show me what I asked for
>links me a wikipedia that lists a bunch of null result experiments
Okay whatever. Have fun pretending to be retarded to dodge questions, or whatever it is that you're doing.

>>11727589
if you want someone to hold your hand and find the experiments themselves you can look at some of the more classical experiments like fizeau experiment. basically you can just type in "(model you want experiments for) experiment" or "(model you want experiments for) test" and you can find experiments that back up the model. its not that hard.

>>11725946
Spacetime is indeed not a real thing.

>>11725946
>>11727692
Spacetime even more debunked.

>>11725925
It can account for experiments and also hold back scientific progress. Those two observations are perfectly consistent with each other.

>>11727419
>Here's some science bro

>>11727419
>Here's some science bro.

>>11727419
Here is some science bro.

>>11727419
>Here is some science, bro.

>what is Einstein's Pseudotensor?
In an attempt to make his General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, Einstein constructed, ad hoc, his pseudotensor. That it is not a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of his theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics.

>Einstein’s Pseudotensor fully explained here:
https://z.zz.ht/98S5i.pdf

>what is The Landau-Lifshitz Pseudotensor
In an attempt to make Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity comply with the usual conservation of energy and momentum for a closed system which a vast array of experiments has ascertained, L. Landau and E. Lifshitz constructed, ad hoc, their pseudotensor, as a proposed improvement upon the pseudotensor of Mr. Einstein. Their pseudotensor is symmetric (Einstein’s is not) and, they say, it permits a conservation law including angular momentum. That it isn't a tensor is outside the very mathematical structure of Einstein’s theory. Beyond that, it violates the rules of pure mathematics.

>The Landau-Lifshitz Pseudotensor fully explained here:
https://z.zz.ht/ZMeXe.pdf

>>11727728
Related science.

>>11727728
>>11727736
>moar relatedness

What was the alternative? Can anyone redpill me on the cold universe model?

>>11727749
The alternative is classical physics.

>>11727692
>>11727717
>>11727722
>>11727728
>>11727730
you know no one is going to read this and you have no idea what is actually being done at all in the images. its literally schizo math that probably has been debunked a 1000 times if you can find the original paper not some screen shot.

>>11727712
You have to have an example of it holding back progress to call it an observation. OP is posting schizo "science" riddled with arithmetic errors and claiming to have insight they blatantly wouldn't have come to.

>>11726499
>path of least resistance for gravity
Both covariant loop quantum gravity and non-commutative geometry would like to have words with you.

>>11725910
You just don't understand it. Nice 2d example retard.