/sci/ - Science & Math

I believe that gravity is an affect of the fourth dimension interacting with certain aspects of our third dimension, such as mass and matter. It is basically a incredibly complex machine working behind a curtain, and affecting that curtain, based on what happens on that curtain. Essentially, the curtain in this case is the three dimensional space we live on.

As for why it exists: It exists because our third-dimensional reality is not all there is in "reality". We live in tandem with the first, second, fourth, and possibly more dimensions.

Technically, yes we can manipulate gravity. We do it every day with our bodies and anything that has mass (i.e. any matter in the universe). I assume what you mean is control it. As for that, no we cannot technically do that yet, however, I do personally believe that in the far future we will be able to do this, because it is physically possible, just not currently technologically possible. We could do this by essentially improving our collider technology and ways to control what we create with colliders.

I am a bit confused on what you mean by
>Is this ONLY mass dependent

I believe antigravity is a reality. I believe we witness it through the expansion of gravity, and the base model of quantum physics seems like it could interact with an anti-gravity inducing particle, however, we are not technologically advanced enough yet to fully understand this.

Hoped this helped a bit

>>12093556
expansion of the universe, not expansion of gravity, my bad

>>12093556
>>12093559
With the way we assume gravitational fields function, wouldn't the expansion of space, be expanding gravity?

Or is there some distinction that separates them?

Pretty sure if space is expanding, gravitational fields would be expanding too, right?

>>12093591
different nonanon here
There could be a delay or seperation of force and mass or something but i still don't buy it. Sounds like a flat earth explanation of gravity.

>>12093591
I'm a little confused by what you are asking but I'll give it a shot.

I assume you're saying that gravitational fields would either be weakening or expanding because of the expansion of space/time. However, I don't believe that to be the case, since space/time are relative, meaning that if fields were expanding, you would also be expanding, meaning you probably wouldn't notice much. A bit of an easy way to explain this is like this: If everything in the universe got 2 times bigger (including you), you wouldn't notice, because relative to you, nothing changed. This is a common misconception because of the model we use to describe space/time. We see it as a stretched piece of cloth in the presence of gravity, which leads to us assuming that the objects that stretch it (matter) don't stretch along with it. This isn't the case, due to us inhabiting a 3 dimensional space. This means that, when we affect space/time, we are also affected by what we do through the proxy of the three dimensional "fabric" of space/time.

>>12093598
Hey, original anon that answered here. Take what I say with a grain of salt, obviously, however, what description of gravity do you believe is most accurate?

>>12093601
Sorry, i understand that I probably sound like I'm rambling. TL;DR Although the gravitational fields may or may not be expanding (they probably are, but we don't quite know due to the nature of the fourth dimension), they would be expanding relative to each other and everything else, so it would likely not be noticeable.

>>12093605
Well as a description it's not too bad it just doesn't seem to be what is actually happening in my mind.

>>12093538
Gravity: A description of mass attracting mass/mass accelerating towards mass.

>How gravity works?
It's not something in and of itself that "works"
>Why gravity exists?
Because humans are smart enough to observe a rock and verify that it exists. However, they are dumb enough to call the action of the rock "something" in and of itself
>Can we manipulate gravity yet?
"sure", the effect we call gravity can be altered using magnetic/electric fields
>Is this ONLY mass dependent?
"mass has gravity"
"gravity attracts more mass"
>Is anti-gravity really a fantasy or a reality?
Gravity is not something to be negated.

>>12093538
The planets are moved around by angels.

>>12093538
we just don't know

>>12093628
Everything you said is either wrong or pointless semantics.

>>12093641
how so? Is it because I'm discussing what doesn't exist?

>mass attracts mass
>okay how
>gravity
>which is just a description of mass accelerating to another mass, a re-description of "mass attracts mass"
>so how does it do that?
>we don't know but we call the effect "gravity"
>And sometimes a force, even though it's not really a force or a cause to anything

>>12093657
Different anon here, I think what you're trying to convey is that we explain an observable phenomenon by using itself as evidence
(>which is just a description of mass accelerating to another mass, a re-description of "mass attracts mass")
I think that's why we need to look to an outside system that we know interacts with the system we are trying to explain. i.e. Time. Since time and space are heavily inter-twined, and time or something to do with it is likely the 4th dimension, I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that a third dimensional object (matter) affects the fourth dimension, and that, in turn, affects other objects around it. Obviously that's a very basic explanation, but I think a mindset like that would get us on the right track.

>>12093630
OBVIOUSLY. I swear, these morons probably believe the ideas of Kepler or Galileo. A bunch of idiots I tell ya.

>>12093538
I fucking hate retarded ironic weaboo meme culture

>>12093682
What if matter contained a charge similar but less detectable than the atomic force that led to gravitational attraction? Or conversely non-material space had a sort of "pressure" that acted upon matter? The latter would be similar to some visual interpitations of gravity but would not be "time".

Gravity is very obviously somehow connected to consciousness.

>>12093788
Biggest brain in the thread.

>>12093814

>can we manipulate gravity yet?

yes. Do you think the government is going to allow the public to know about this technology that would essentially expose the scam they've played on humanity for the last 100 years? Clearly they'll just release the tech in increments so as long as they continue to benefit and we continue to be enslaved and indebted.

>>12093657
>how so? Is it because I'm discussing what doesn't exist?
No it's because you're incapable of arguing logically.

>>mass attracts mass
So gravity exists.

>>okay how
>>gravity
No, it's because of the curvature of spacetime.

Having retarded conversations with yourself has no bearing on reality.

>>12093717
>What if matter contained a charge similar but less detectable than the atomic force that led to gravitational attraction?
What charge attracts itself? What does this explain better than relativity and why is it hard to detect?

>Or conversely non-material space had a sort of "pressure" that acted upon matter?
How does pressure cause matter to attract itself?

>>12093717
Unfortunately it has been proven that time and space affect each other through time dilation experiments using atomic clocks. So, although those are very interesting Ideas, I'd have to say I don't think that is how that works.

>>12094853
Well i was thinking about it and since time is a measure of the movement of matter i suppose there may be something there.

>>12094755
>No it's because you're incapable of arguing logically.
I'm not going to argue over something never proven to exist. Sorry, burden of proof is on you.

>mass attracts mass
>So gravity exists.
*takes two magnets and they attract each other
Oh look, must be "gravity" causing them to attract since they're both made of mass and I described them attracting to each other right? That's the problem with believing that describing something automatically means that it exists as something. By that logic, elves and fairies must exist in the real world because they can be described accurately.

>No, it's because of the curvature of spacetime.

Which is yet another description...of something else/hat something else does. If it's a by product of "spacetime"/property of it then ultimately gravity doesn't exist. It's "warped spacetime". You're just calling it "gravity" because it's conventionally referred to as such, this effect caused by spacetime that is. I'm not even going to go down the road of proving the existence of "spacetime".

>>12094772
>How does pressure cause matter to attract itself?
Have you ever used one of those vacuum seal-able clothes bags? Have you ever unplugged your sink drain when it's full of water? Kind of like that.

>>12095472
>I'm not going to argue over something never proven to exist.
Them is a good thing we're arguing about gravity. By the way, have you proven that this mysterious "charge" or "pressure" exists?

>Sorry, burden of proof is on you.
To prove what?

>*takes two magnets and they attract each other
>Oh look, must be "gravity" causing them to attract since they're both made of mass and I described them attracting to each other right?
No, it's magnetism. What is your point? No one is saying that any attraction is gravity.

>That's the problem with believing that describing something automatically means that it exists as something.
No one said it does. Gravity is observable.

>By that logic, elves and fairies must exist in the real world because they can be described accurately.
They can't be observed.

>Which is yet another description...of something else/hat something else does.
OK, so what?

>If it's a by product of "spacetime"/property of it then ultimately gravity doesn't exist.
Doesn't follow.

>It's "warped spacetime".
No it's the result of warped spacetime.

>You're just calling it "gravity" because it's conventionally referred to as such, this effect caused by spacetime that is.
OK, so what? You'te just taking about senantics. Do you have anything substantive to say?

>>12095472
>Have you ever used one of those vacuum seal-able clothes bags?
No. How does a vacuum attract mass to itself? Keep in mind that you don't just need some mass to be attracted, all mass needs to be attracted and according to the laws of gravity, such that the force is proportional to the amount of mass and the square of distance. Good luck.

>Have you ever unplugged your sink drain when it's full of water?
Yes, water falls into the drain due to gravity. All pressure is the result of fundamental forces.

>>12095657
If you have two separate bodies of mass free floating in a vacuum...

And let's say in this vacuum "gravity" does not exist.

Would the two bodies of mass clump together because of half living releasing energy evenly in all directions from each body?

Would some interaction cause a pressure to drag them together?

The particles released from each would interact eventually.

So if those particles potentially bond together, could the bonding of smaller particles create a pull/pressure chain of the other smaller particles that would lead back to the larger mass bodies, pulling them together?

Maybe they'd repel, meh, theoretical setup and all, who knows...

>>12096312
>Would the two bodies of mass clump together because of half living releasing energy evenly in all directions from each body?
How would that make them clump together???

>Would some interaction cause a pressure to drag them together?
Pressure from what?

>The particles released from each would interact eventually.
Not all particles.

>So if those particles potentially bond together, could the bonding of smaller particles create a pull/pressure chain of the other smaller particles that would lead back to the larger mass bodies, pulling them together?
No, that makes no sense. And that would look nothing like gravity anyway. You are gradping at straws to explain something that already has a well evidenced explanation. Why?

>>12093556
>I believe that
>>>/x/

Freeman Dyson had a good point.

We're chasing this golden goose, when it could be completely different machinery under the hood.

Not Gravitons.

He said Gravity might be a statistical property like Temperature. Like K, it doesn't really mean anything other than a measure of the average KE of particles.

But we can still measure heat and its effects.

Maybe "Gravity" is the same way. We can measure it, and its effects, but it maybe a measure of something incredibly new or we don't understand yet.

>>12096377
I like your answer, but it seems that you're dancing around the curvature explanation.

While, also implying there's something more to gravity...

I like your answer a lot, but it's sad, because this implies we still don't know, and I was really hoping we had a more succinct answer for gravity's existence, and how we might be able to utilize it beyond slingshot maneuvers.

>>12093538
i have an idea id like to propose or well a thought.
Matter cannot be destroyed or created yes and the big bang essentially contained all the matter in the universe.

if there is a set amount of matter and matter interacts/produces/explains gravity.
what if there was a set about of gravity. maximum universal gravity. Gravity too cannot be created or destroyed but only transferred or negated.

inother words you cannot create or destroy gravity you can only shift it from one from point to another.
think of it like an abacus. a set of digits or balls. You can slide one from area to another.

>>12093538
idk honestly you can do physics and not have to worry about what gravity is and just use the Newtonian gravity equation and get by for 95% of things.

>>12093556
Why do you come here
>>>/x/

>>12097222
nice trip

>>12095636
>Them is a good thing we're arguing about gravity.
No, you are. Gravity IS a description. Sorry you can't prove otherwise and instead are insisting to argue for some reason.

>To prove what?
That gravity exists.

>No, it's magnetism.
Well gravity is fucking magnetism now I guess. Must suck relying on pure descriptions right?

>No one is saying that any attraction is gravity.
You admitted "mass attracting mass is gravity". I just showed you how that's incorrect. Now you're using other descriptions as an excuse for being wrong.

>They can't be observed.
>but space and time can

>OK, so what?
So ultimately gravity doesn't fucking exist.

>Doesn't follow.
>what something does is something in and of itself
If I swim does that make "swimming" something physical that causes something? No, same reason why gravity isn't something physical and doesn't actually cause anything.

>No it's the result of warped spacetime.
>so what something else does

>OK, so what?
So gravity doesn't exist.

>>12095657
>How does a vacuum attract mass to itself?'
>remove area between matter
>matter condenses
>due to pressure mediation
The matter is not attracted to itself really, it's the absence of matter that matter "fills" because it needs to be "equalized"

>Yes, water falls into the drain due to gravity
Which is a description

>fill pipe entirely with water
>ceases to fall
>sucks water up with a straw
The absence of the water is what allows it to fall/move in the first place, there needs a disparity otherwise its "no motion whatsoever". It is impelled to go "where it is not" because it literally has nowhere else to go.

>All pressure is the result of fundamental forces.
Are you saying gravity is a force or something? It's a description of mass accelerating.

Gravity is not as a force, but is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of spacetime is a black hole.
Gravity waves exist.

>>12093538
>>12098462
Why some of you can't explain anything without moving the entire universe for it?

Source for the coomers
hentainexus dot /view/3288

GR is the pinnacle of physics.
SM is just thrown together BS.

t. MSc Physics

Gravity is the result of complexity. Gravity is a statistical phenomenon like Thermodynamics. GR is equal to QM.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03040.pdf

>>12098462
Mass is just an illusion expressed by the curvature of spacetime. Ultimately, only spacetime exists.

>>12099341

>>12099366
Take it up with Lenny.

>>12099373
I'll fuck Lenny up

>>12099408
I’ll literally come all the way to Stanford to fuck you up before you can fight Lenny

>>12099412
I'll beat you up, THEN Lenny.
Then you again, because you deserve a good lesson

>>12099412
Then I'll fuck Lenny gf, and then your mom
And maybe then you'll understand statistics is a convenient tool to describe reality and not reality itself.

>>12099428
You really think you can take me on? How much do you bench bro?

>>12093538
Good fucking lord, that pose is my kryptonite.

>>12099442
I suplex your mom on a daily basis. I'm one with spacetime, and spacetime is one with me. You're nothing compared to me, you're already dead, and so is Lenny. You're statistics are no match to the true nature of reality. Go cope with the other Copenhagen fags in the corner and don't bother us with your infinitesimal understanding of what's going on around your sorry ass

>>12099470
You’re really fucking retarded, aren’t you?

You don’t understand what I meant by “Gravity is a statistical phenomena”.

>>12099494
>Gravity is a statistical phenomena
>The nature of gravity is statistical
>Statistics define gravity
>Statistics define the curvature of spacetime
>Statistics define reality
Explain yourself. Explain yourself or I'll suplex you back into your mom

>>12099513
“Statistical physics is a branch of physics that uses methods of probability theory and statistics, and particularly the mathematical tools for dealing with large populations and approximations, in solving physical problems.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_physics

We don’t know what Gravity is, we don’t know how to actually define the true ontological nature of Gravity in a Quantum theory; hence why we describe it the same way we describe Thermodynamics—in a statistical theory.

We know how Gravity can affect a body with a significant amount of mass with Einstein’s field equations; but we don’t know what the true metaphysical nature of Gravity is, neither do we have an accurate description on how Gravity works on small scales.

In that way, it is a statistical model. We work on probabilities. We don’t know everything. Ect.

>>12099529
>We don't know things for sure!
>But gravity is purely statistical!
Behold, the tragedy and comedy of statistical physics

>>12099539
>We don’t know everything about a theory, therefore all of our calculations are purely statistics.

Yes. That’s how it works.

>>12099547
Or maybe. Just maybe. The whole "Gravity is a statistical phenomena" is a presumptuous and preposterous way of asserting gravity is purely statistical, and that IN NO WAY (no way) gravity could be a phenomena derived from a more mathematically sound theory and is merely crudely approximated by statistics.

>>12099557
>Or maybe. Just maybe. The whole "Thermodynamics is a statistical phenomena" is a presumptuous and preposterous way of asserting Thermodynamics is purely statistical, and that IN NO WAY (no way) Thermodynamics could be a phenomena derived from a more mathematically sound theory and is merely crudely approximated by statistics.

>>12099557
This entire post is just showing your ignorance. My point was that the current theory of Gravitation is based on statistics, and hence why if we truly want to get a more basic consensus on Gravity we have to look into Complexity and Information; the two basic facets of ultimate reality according to modern Physics.

Even if we get a totally correct theory of Quantum Gravity, it would still be statistical. The wavefunction is based on probability and a statistical formulation as indicated by the Schrödinger equation. If we truly want to Quantize Gravity we’re going to have to make that fit. We’re going to have to make the classical field theory that is GR fit into a Quantum field theory, which is just another formulation of mathematical statistics.

>>12099571
This also sums up my point pretty well. Gravity is statistical, the same way Thermodynamics is.

>>12093538
can someone tell me source for pic?

>>12093538
can someone tell me the source of pic? I literally cannot find it

>>12099557
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK

>>12099653
>>12098931

>>12099900
thanks anon

Am I more likely to attract a lady with my gravitational field or with my electromagnetic field? No matter how small they be in magnitude, which one's stronger?

>>12099578
Gravity being described to a certain extent by statistics doesn't mean it's true nature is statistics.
Statistics is a tool to cover our ignorance/partial understanding of the true nature of things. Only a fool would mistake it for the actual source/cause/reason of a phenomena.

>>12100967
In the case of thermodynamics, statistics is used to describe systems with lots of interacting parts. But is thermodynamics a fundamental law of physics itself? No, it's a mathematical consequence of the physical laws.
Gravity on the other hand is an axiom of our physical universe, not a consequence of it.
So please keep your ridiculous comparison of thermodynamics and gravity to yourself.

>>12101002
>Gravity on the other hand is an axiom of our physical universe
Not really.

>>12098931
bless your soul

>>12101179
Prove it faggot

>>12098451
>No, you are. Gravity IS a description.
Funny how you deny you're arguing about gravity and then immediately start arguing about gravity. Look, you can call whatever you want a "description." What are you trying to argue?

>That gravity exists.
Already done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>Well gravity is fucking magnetism now I guess.
Shockingly, you guess wrong.

>Must suck relying on pure descriptions right?
You're projecting. The only one here who has brought zero empirical evidence or logic to support their claims is you.

>You admitted "mass attracting mass is gravity".
Actually what I said was that mass attracting mass proves gravity exists. You interpreted this as any mass attracting any mass in any way proves gravity exists, while ignoring that gravity is an attraction between all mass in a specific way. I'm not sure what exactly you think this illustrates other than your inability to argue honestly.

>>but space and time can
Of course they can, you're observing them right now. You can even measure them.

>So ultimately gravity doesn't fucking exist.
How does a description of what causes gravity show that gravity doesn't exist?

>>what something does is something in and of itself
>If I swim does that make "swimming" something physical that causes something?
More pointless semantics. If gravity occurs then yes it's "physical." But why do you care what it's called?

>>so what something else does
And? You're going to have actually explain your argument.

>So gravity doesn't exist.
Doesn't follow. You're just talking about senantics. Do you have anything substantive to say?

>>12099578
But that applies more to the larger scales of gravity, like motion of a galaxy

>>12098451
>The matter is not attracted to itself really
Then you're not explaining gravity.

>it's the absence of matter that matter "fills" because it needs to be "equalized"
This sounds like a description of what something does, and not an explanation of what it is. Why aren't you throwing a semantic tantrum? Why does matter need to be "equalized" in vacuum? Are you talking about diffusion? That doesn't replicate gravitational attraction. Try again.

>Which is a description
Everything we talk about is going to be a description. Get over it and stop being such a hypocrite.

>The absence of the water is what allows it to fall/move in the first place
Use your brain for a second. There was always an absence of water above the water. Why didn't it flow up?

>there needs a disparity otherwise its "no motion whatsoever"
There is a disparity, the downward force of gravity vs. the upward force of whatever is in the way of the water. You will never ever explain anything by dogmatically denying what has already been observed over and over again. Please keep trying though, it's very amusing.

>Are you saying gravity is a force or something?
It's easy to treat it as such.

>It's a description of mass accelerating.
Distinction without a difference.

>>12093538
Weight is self-amplifying with nearness
The closer to a heavy object you get, the heavier it becomes

>>12101289
>Then you're not explaining gravity.
Of course not, because gravity doesn't actually exist. I'm explaining why it doesn't exist.

>This sounds like a description of what something does
How do you expect me to explain what an absence does? It's absent, to say anything of it would be incorrect. Naming it is even incorrect

>Why aren't you throwing a semantic tantrum?
I'm not arguing over the meaning of words. The meaning of words doesn't make a difference when explaining how shit works or verifying the existence of something
>Unicorns
and the semantics involving them can be argued for eternity. In the end it doesn't mean anything because what you're talking about doesn't actually exist.
>Why does matter need to be "equalized" in vacuum?
It loses itself to the absence of itself. It is "condensed" and the environment enables it to "evaporate". The vacuum is not a true vacuum, it contains matter as well, just less of it.

>Everything we talk about is going to be a description.
Which is what engaging in a dialectic is for.

>There was always an absence of water above the water. Why didn't it flow up?
It does. It's called "evaporation". Maybe if Newton waited a couple weeks he would have observed the apple do that too.

>the downward force of gravity vs. the upward force of whatever is in the way of the water.
Assuming gravity is a "force", what is the "downward force" of gravity at the "center of gravity"?

>You will never ever explain anything by dogmatically denying what has already been observed over and over again
Using the same logic you could chase and define a shadow for eternity. You observed it over and over so it must be real?

>It's easy to treat it as such.
Yes it's easy to just assume, because it's hard to know what you're talking about.

>Distinction without a difference.
>A description is a force
At least try.

>>12101273
>Funny how you deny you're arguing about gravity and then immediately start arguing about gravity.
I'm saying it IS a description and correcting people where they are wrong. I'm actively not trying to argue about it since it's not something to argue over. If anything I'm arguing over other peoples misconception of what they think it is.
>two masses accelerate
>towards a null point
>null point
So the "null point" must be the cause of gravity right? The cause of gravity is no gravity!

>Shockingly, you guess wrong
Shockingly, you can't differentiate the two other than with semantics.

>The only one here who has brought zero empirical evidence or logic to support their claims is you.
I've pointed out there is none for gravity. Also I'm pretty sure everyone here is smart enough to know how a fucking straw works.

>Actually what I said was that mass attracting mass proves gravity exists
>light shining on object proves shadows exist
And I took two magnets, stuck them both together. According to your own logic that must be caused by "gravity" because both magnets are made of mass.

>Of course they can, you're observing them right now. You can even measure them.
>You can observe an absence
>You can measure a measure
What If I told you I could see elves? Might take some drugs to do, but if I eventually "see" it it must be there right?
How does one measure time? It IS a measure is it not?

>How does a description of what causes gravity show that gravity doesn't exist?
If you're describing the actions of something, you're ultimately speaking of *what the real thing* is *doing*. What it's *doing* is what you would describe as "gravity". If you swim does that make "swimming" something? No, it's what something else does.

>More pointless semantics
Pointless because it's useless to discuss the meaning of shit that doesn't exist, yes. "Gravity" is just that, pointless semantics. Like equating mass to having an original sin that has no explination.

>>1210124
>Disprove an axiom

Aren’t you supposed to try to prove it first

>>12102228
>Of course not, because gravity doesn't actually exist. I'm explaining why it doesn't exist.
Why do you think it doesn't exist? What is wrong with the Cavendish experiment?

>How do you expect me to explain what an absence does?
I expect you to explain whatever you just claimed. If what you claimed is nonsensical then don't claim it. If you're not going to explain your own claims then stop posting them.

>It's absent, to say anything of it would be incorrect.
Then why are you saying something about it? The only thing worse than making up all these rules based on semantics is not following them yourself.

>I'm not arguing over the meaning of words.
Then please explain how calling anything a description is a substantive argument.

>It loses itself to the absence of itself. It is "condensed" and the environment enables it to "evaporate".
Meaningless drivel. There are absences all around matter that don't produce gravitational attraction. Diffusion already exists separately.

>Which is what engaging in a dialectic is for.
Then why are you complaining about descriptions?

>It does. It's called "evaporation".
So evaporation is strongest in the direction of other mass? No, evaporation doesn't have a direction. And doesn't explain why water goes down a drain. Try again.

>Assuming gravity is a "force", what is the "downward force" of gravity at the "center of gravity"?
You mean the resultant torque? 0. What is your point?

>Using the same logic you could chase and define a shadow for eternity. You observed it over and over so it must be real?
How do you know a shadow isn't real? Is it because you chased and defined a shadow for eternity or is it because you already understand what a shadow is? But that instantiated is just a model based on optical physics. Why isn't that "chasing shadows?" Oh it's because you haven't found it convenient to deny optics, although I'm sure you could.

>>12102228
>Yes it's easy to just assume, because it's hard to know what you're talking about.
No it's not. I don't spout vague pseudoscientific gibberish like you.

>>A description is a force
A force is a description.

>>12098931
BASED

>>12102301
>I'm saying it IS a description
Which is not saying anything substantive, yet you think it's an argument against gravity, while denying you're arguing about gravity. It's pretty funny.

>and correcting people where they are wrong.
What have I said that's wrong and what evidence have you brought to show it?

>I'm actively not trying to argue about it
You're trying very hard to argue that it doesn't exist and failing just as hard.

>>two masses accelerate
>>towards a null point
>So the "null point" must be the cause of gravity right?
Why?

>Shockingly, you can't differentiate the two other than with semantics.
I don't see how the difference between mass and charge is semantics. I don't see how the difference between repulsion and attraction is semantics. I don't see how the difference between the inverse-square law and the inverse-cube law is semantics. You are truly delusional.

>According to your own logic that must be caused by "gravity" because both magnets are made of mass.
Which logic was that exactly? Oh the one you made up. This is called a strawman.

>What If I told you I could see elves?
I wouldn't be surprised, considering the other ridiculous things you've said.

>Might take some drugs to do, but if I eventually "see" it it must be there right?
No, if you can scientifically observe them in a controlled experiment (one obvious control would be that the participant can't be taking hallucinogenic drugs) then they must be there. And that's exactly what we've done over and over with gravity. You already know this, so you're trying to avoid responding to scientific evidence. You're not fooling anyone.

>How does one measure time?
With a clock.

>It IS a measure is it not?
A measure of time is a measure. I'm not sure what you mean by time being a measure.

>If you swim does that make "swimming" something? No, it's what something else does.
This is just more semantics. What is your point?

>>12102301
>Pointless because it's useless to discuss the meaning of shit that doesn't exist, yes.
Then by that logic gravity must exist since it's study has proven exceedingly useful.

>Like equating mass to having an original sin that has no explination.
How is original sin scientifically observable?

Gravity is just the result of an intrinsic property of mass, right?

>>12103734
massless matter is still affected by gravity

>>12103738
Alright, what isn't affected by gravity then? It must be an intrinsic property of the entire group that is affected, however you could group them up.

>>12103734
No it's the result of curvature of spacetime caged by energy.

>>12103748
>Alright, what isn't affected by gravity then?
Whatever has zero energy.

>>12103991
What exists in a state of zero energy?

Even vacuum has a measurable energy constant.

Gravity is the after effect of the massive machines running the life simulator

>>12104539
> >>>/x/

@EVERYONE
>PLEASE STOP WASTING YOUR TIME ON THIS RETARDED SHIT

>>12104550
Prove me wrong instead of coping

>>12104665
I think it's on you to prove yourself right.

gravity is just a social construct created by the patriarchy to constrict the free movement of women.

>>12105470
You joke, but this is just an extra step away from fat positive garbage.

>>12101002
Thermodynamics is considered fundamental.

>>12102301
Verbs are things that exist.

>>12104665
This isn't even half testable to have any truth validity to it, hence >>>/x/

>>12093538
3D non uniform space is squished on some places, and particles travel from higher to less density.

4D Curvature in short.

>>12103599
>Which is not saying anything substantive
"YES"
>argument against gravity
I cannot argue for something never proven to exist which is why I am accurately calling it nothing other than a description.
>while denying you're arguing about gravity.
I'm not arguing about gravity, I'm arguing with you and your misconceptions. Specifically about what YOU think gravity is, not gravity itself.
>What have I said that's wrong and what evidence have you brought to show it?
"mass attracts mass which is gravity". Which doesn't explain anything. It also doesn't differentiate it from magnetism. You also equated time as being measurable when it itself is a measurement.
>You're trying very hard to argue that it doesn't exist
How about I meet you half way. "It exists as a description" even though I already tried to explain that using the elves analogy.
>Why?
Because mass is affected by pressure. Things get sucked towards an absence, not "mass to mass" with no rhyme or reason or because they're simply described as doing so.
>I don't see how the difference between mass and charge is semantics.
>I don't see how the difference between repulsion and attraction is semantics
And I still don't see you differentiating magnetism from gravity.

>I don't see how the difference between the inverse-square law and the inverse-cube law is semantics
Of course not. Those are more descriptions. They explain nothing.

>Which logic was that exactly?
"mass attracts mass"-your description of gravity. Magnets are made of mass. So what the fuck?

>This is called a strawman.
Go read your own posts you dumbshit. Sorry you're forgetting so much but that's what happens when you talk semantics about something that doesn't exist.

>I wouldn't be surprised
Of course not, because you yourself have told me 3 different things "exist" despite no fucking empirical evidence confirming it.

>if you can scientifically observe them in a controlled experiment
Which has never happened for
Gravity
Space
and Time

>>12103599
>With a clock.
>This non existent measure I reified is measurable with pinions, gears and springs, and various censors that run on electricity.
>This thing specifically designed by a human to be repetitive is somehow a gauge for determining this non existent hman made up measure.
>So using time we circularly define it as "time" and say that it does something, causes something, and is something.
Some are so deluded in this psychosis that they actually refer to time as a "dimension". Truly laughable since there has never been a scientific experiment that confirmed it as having properties let alone "dimensionality".
>yes we all forward through the flow of time
as if it were a medium or something like water.

>A measure of time is a measure. I'm not sure what you mean by time being a measure.
Time, the arbitrary subdivisions of floating and orbiting spheres of matter. The spheres and matter have properties and exist. The measurement we use to record them, does not.

>>12103607
>Then by that logic gravity must exist since it's study has proven exceedingly useful.
A shadow is useful for cooling you off on a sunny day.

>How is original sin scientifically observable?
>That's the joke

"We observed the masses moving, now lets make up this description of them moving and equate that description to a "Force". Lets call it "Zeus"...oh wait no that was take, lets try "gravity" instead. Yes we only defined it with stuff that this force isn't (the matter), but it must be moving for a reason so lets just describe the reason as "gravity" and call it a day.