/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12504530
It's a mathematical description that has nothing to do with reality.

>>12504533
this

SpaceTime is curved. Curved means that the Riemann tensor is non-zero. We don’t live in just 3 spacial dimensions, we live in “3+1” dimensions meaning three of space and one of time. You are almost right when you complain about 4D because we live in “3+1”D which is completely different.

>>12504533
surely it must have something to do with reality otherwise why would they use it

>>12504530
I refuse to tell you.
>>12504533
Doesn't know how wrong he is.

>>12504530
"Curvature" is a way of talking about a mathematical expression, it means you have more space-for-your-space in areas of hgh curvature and less space-for-your-space in areas of low curvature. See how retarded that sounds without the maths to go along with it? Yeah.

>>12504625
>>12504663
All mathematical models used by science are aproximations of reality and never reality itself.

You don't know this probably because you went to a second order University.

>>12504728
abstractions aren't approximations, you sound like a pseud. you probably think 0.9999...=/=1

>>12504530
>(Don't invoke 4D space which doesn't exist!)
And yet "3D" does?

>>12504625
>surely it must have something to do with reality otherwise why would they use it
don't let us stop you from finishing that thought now...

>>12504619
>SpaceTime is curved.
"The sky is blue"
>Curved means that the Riemann tensor is non-zero
"blue" means it's a particular color. "Sky" means the area above you"
>We don’t live in just 3 spacial dimensions, we live in “3+1” dimensions meaning three of space and one of time.
"The sky is not only blue, sometimes it's red! Meaning not only is it just blue, but it also gradates to red, it's "blue+red!"
>You are almost right when you complain about 4D because we live in “3+1”D which is completely different.
"You're almost right when you complain that this statement doesn't explain what the "sky" or what "colors" actually are because we live under a blue+red sky which is completely different, and also descriptions can't be wrong."

>>12504663
descriptions are "not even wrong"

>>12504667
>See how retarded that sounds without the maths to go along with it?
It sounds retarded regardless of what language you use to describe a shadow.

>>12504760
>don't let us stop you from finishing that thought now
?

>>12504728
Already stated I had no interest in sharing.

>>12504530
*ahem*
TIME IS A SPATIAL DIMENSION

WE AREN'T BUILT TO PERCEIVE 4 DIMENSIONS AT ONCE SO WE EXPERIENCE TIME AS A LINEAR PASSAGE OF EVENTS

THE UNIVERSE IS 4 DIMENSIONAL AND WE ARE SIMPLY 3 DIMENSIONAL BEINGS WITHIN IT

I'm a retard, but this makes sense to me and I will elaborate further if asked. I would like to discuss this further with you /sci/, and if I'm wrong then that would still be a useful takeaway so I don't mind.

brainlet doesn't know what gravity is.

It is when the room you are in right now is compressed towards the Earth, so you are literally being pushed by space itself towards the Earth.

That is gravity.

Why do we have so many college-student-tier threads on sci? Don't tell me you guys are actually still Freshmen in college or something.

>>12504791
also fuck OP I'll bring up 4D space if I want to

>>12504533
Pure schizo COPE

>>12504789
exactly.

>>12504791
>WE AREN'T BUILT TO PERCEIVE 4 DIMENSIONS AT ONCE SO WE EXPERIENCE TIME AS A LINEAR PASSAGE OF EVENTS
So why are you sitting here telling me time exists?

>THE UNIVERSE IS 4 DIMENSIONAL
What was wrong with being "dimensional"? Why do we need 3 more dimensional natures?

>>12504803
>you are literally being pushed by space itself towards the Earth.
This "space" sounds like a pretty dense medium to accomplish such a feat. Now what pushes "space"?

>>12504619

so? why can't it be a "flat" 3+1D in which physical events are located? what does it mean it's "curved"?

>>12504791
Elaborate further to prove you're not a brainlet spouting /x/ tier shit.

>>12504530
You are experiencing curved space right now. You don't actually think that being sucked towards the ground is a normal feature of normal non curved space, right anon?

>>12504820
What are you talking about? Space is the distance between two objects. The distance is compressed itself by mass and therefore you get relatively closer together.

Space isn't an object like air. Your tiny brain can't comprehend what space is, so how can you think you are able to understand spacetime curvature?

>>12504820
>exactly.
you're not as smart as you think you are.

>>12504820
The distance between two objects is locally altered by the presence of mass which causes them to globally come closer together.

>>12504827
You're experienced a curved planet on a noncurved space

>>12504830
>What are you talking about? Space is the distance between two objects.

Exactly. A measurement. Not actually something. It's like saying a "centimeter" is actually something that exists. A centimeter "of what"?

>The distance is compressed itself by mass
How? By what means? Also you just said (or the previous poster anyway) said it was "space" that was compressing it, but if it's a measure...how can it do that? It makes no sense.

>Space isn't an object like air.
...so what IS space?

>Your tiny brain can't comprehend what space is, so how can you think you are able to understand spacetime curvature?
...bro if you can't even tell me what space is, then how you describe it is irrelevant. As I said, "the sky is blue", but that doesn't explain what the sky is or what "blue" is. You could be talking about a shadow for all I know.

>>12504837
For asking questions?

>>12504840
>The distance between two objects is locally altered by the presence of mass which causes them to globally come closer together.
I GET THAT. NOW HOW DOES IT DO THAT? What is the mode? What is the cause of what you are describing?
>hurr grug see rock go to rock
Cool Story Bro. Now tell me *how* and why it does that?

>>12504820
>So why are you sitting here telling me time exists?
I specifically said "we aren't built to perceive 4 dimensions at once" - see: "at once".

We can still experience time, and move along it on a linear axis, but we cannot see time as a static, unmoving constant like we do length, width, and height. But it's still linear and measurable, which proves its' a dimension. We're just not equipped to see it as a spatial dimension, and instead see it as a temporal one.

>What was wrong with being "dimensional"?
>Why do we need 3 more dimensional natures?
Did you seriously just ask me why we have multiple dimensions? Please describe to me the difference between a circle and a sphere without using the concept of multiple dimensions.
THAT'S why we have multiple dimensions, it's necessary for us to describe the universe which we live in.

retard number 1 BTFO, next please.

>>12504846
>For asking questions?
no, for being a prideful pseud

>>12504825
what would you like me to elaborate on specifically?

I should note that I'm not an expert, I'm legitimately trying to have a discussion over these points and if I'm wrong I wanna know. Unless someone says something utterly niggerbrained like this>>12504820 guy

>>12504530
Let's say you're in intergalatic space, so there's no gravitational sources around for millions of lightyears in any direction. You throw a ball; it travels in a perfectly straight line and keeps traveling in a perfectly straight line, for millions of years.
>the 'space' you're in is FLAT
Now let's say you're in our solar system near Saturn. You throw your ball at a right angle to Saturn; it *doesn't* travel in a perfectly straight line, over time it heads more and more towards the planet.
>the 'space' you're in is CURVED by the gravity of Saturn
Get it now?

>>12504852
Can you explain why you consider time as a spatial dimension and why we don't experience it like the other dimensions? Why are we 3d beings and why is the universe 4d? Why is there no 5d, 6d, and so on? What would those dimensions be like?

>>12504830
compressed - relative to what? to an absolute euclidean space?

>>12504856
why say the space is curved
why not just say the ball is heading towards the planet because of its mass pulling on the ball

>>12504856
no? the ball's path is curved in the flat space!

>>12504846
unrelated note, I don't even have that image saved on my comp. This has happened before when I've used an image and it posts a different image. Is it a bug or something?

>>12504847
>We can still experience time, and move along it on a linear axis, but we cannot see time as a static, unmoving constant like we do length, width, and height. But it's still linear and measurable, which proves its' a dimension. We're just not equipped to see it as a spatial dimension, and instead see it as a temporal one.
It's a measure no? How is it "measurable"? It's a standard we set based on what we apply it to.

>Please describe to me the difference between a circle and a sphere without using the concept of multiple dimensions.
Please explain how a mathematical description makes a seed grow into a tree that looks nothing like the original seed. Explain where the "dimensional nature" of the seed originated from when at some point it didn't even exist to be measured in the first place.

>THAT'S why we have multiple dimensions, it's necessary for us to describe
"yes"
>the universe which we live in.
Does the Universe count and measure?

>>12504530
The best way to understand curved space-time is Einstein's way in 1907. Imagine all of space is filled with clocks which are held in place, but they need tick at different rates in order to stay simultaneous with each other. Near a massive object, the clocks tick slowly, away from masses, they tick faster.

Particles travel through space so that they locally take the path of maximum time between fixed endpoints, so that between endpoints which are close to a massive object, their path curves out a little, meaning that they are bent toward the massive object.

This is a statement of the Einstein 1907 theory of gravity, which he knew then would be the weak field, slow velocity approximation to Genera Relativity. It is counterintuitive for a few reasons:

1. In geometry, straight line paths are minimum distance. In relativity the path is a local maximum. This is a consequence of the minus sign in the Pythagorean theorem in relativity. In relativity, unlike in geometry, the sum of the length of two legs of a triangle (when these are not imaginary) is always less than the third, so that straight lines maximize proper time.
2. There is only one function which describes the curving of space time, and this is the clock rate. The curvature is determined by this clock rate, but it is purely a time curvature. Space is not curved at all.
3. The geodesic motion is not trivial to see from the clock-rate description. You might naively think that to maximize the proper time you need to move away from massive objects, because time ticks slower near them. But the maximization is holding the endpoints fixed. To give an equation of motion without the concept of maximum proper time, you can just say that objects feel a force of attraction towards regions of slower clock-tick, and leave it at that. But this doesn't look like a geometrical condition (although it is).

I don't believe that there are two pictures of a phenomenon, one for laymen and a separate one for physicists.

>>12504876
[math] \mathbf{Two~dimensional~relativistic~gravity} [/math]
For the two dimensional gravity, with point masses, there is a nice description which can be understood immediately. Two dimensional point masses are parallel strings moving perpendicular to the direction of motion in 3d plus time, but these strings are like pencils of light, not stationary line-masses, they are relativistic along their direction of motion. You need to have a relativistic momentum density on the strings for them to reduce to the simple limit of 2+1 gravity.

In this limit, the strings are described by 2+1 graity. The point masses in 2+1 gravity are described by cutting out a wedge from a two dimensional paper representing space-time, and gluing it back to form a cone. This description is exact - this is what the space-time around a relativistic cosmic strings looks like. The space is called locally flat, because if you draw a least distance line it will be straight after unrolling the paper, so that the only curvature is that which can be seen from outside, not to a flat fellow living inside the paper. There is only intrinsic curvature at the tip of the cone, proportional to the deficit angle, the angular size of the wedge. This is is the mass of the string.

>>12504880
If you imagine a particle coming in from infinity, it travels in a straight line along the cone, but it comes out deflected in a certain way. This is easiest to see by taking two parallel lines coming in on opposite sides of the cone point - they will intersect each other.

If you make a double-cone by cutting out two wedges, to make a slushie-shape after gluing. The paper is still locally flat, but if you draw two straight lines, the line passing between the cones will intersect the other lines. A collection of n stationary cone points describes an equilibrium stationary configuration of 2d gravity.

If you set the cone points in motion, and add some points with negative curvature which evolve in a specific way (their curvature in the 3d sense is still zero) you get t'Hooft's description of 2+1 gravity, which is an active research subject today.

>>12504859
So the crux of my belief can be explained by an analogy. It gets a bit booky and requires some spatial fuckery in your mind so bear with.

Imagine a cube. It is a three dimensional shape. Imagine that our universe is that cube, and that a moment in time is a single 2D square forming an infinitely small "slice" of that cube. To a 2D being living in that cubic universe, the 3 dimensions we perceive as spatial (the height, width, and length of the cube) would appear to it as two spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension; i.e, to that being, the length and width of the cube would be the equivalent to our three dimensions of height, width and length, and to that 2D being the 3rd dimension (Which he would experience as time) would just be what we see as the height of the cube. In the same way, to a 4D being looking at our universe, they would perceive our universe as our equivalent of a 3D shape, and see our concept of "time" as spatial in the same way we see the height, length, or width of a 3D cube as equally spatial.

The reason why we don't experience it as we do other dimensions imo is simply because we are only built to experience 3 dimensions as spatial and one as temporal. Like most of science, I don't know why, but I can observe that it simply is that way. Hypothetically, an infinite amount of "higher" dimensions (5D, 6D, etc) could exist, with each seeing the lower dimension in the way we see a a 3D object- that is, static, measurable, spatial.

This can very easily be tied into most abrahamic faiths, and in particular Plato's theory of the forms, but that's a discussion for /his/. Am I making any sense or is this complete nonsense? I find this concept exceedingly difficult to explain to most people.

>>12504530
>>12504533
It's literally pseudoscience. Stop believing jewish garbage.

>>12504862
>>12504866
Describe that mathmatically, then.
>you can't because you're not making sense
>/b/rainlets /b/elong in >>>/b/ not /sci/
Please go back there now.

>>12504893
So sort of like flatland but scaled up one dimension

>>12504742
Autism.
>>12504790
You have nothing of substance to add anyways.

>>12504896
I can. It's called Newtonian physics

>>12504880
Wh𝓪t 𝓪nd wh𝓪t?

>>12504873
>Asking me how time is measurable
all forms of measurement are relative, you could make the same exact point about height, length and width.
Please explain how a mathematical description makes a seed grow into a tree that looks nothing like the original seed.

>Explain where the "dimensional nature" of the seed originated from when at some point it didn't even exist to be measured in the first place.
I don't see how that's relevant, to an observer capable of grasping 4D that "seed" would simply be seen as the aggregate of all it's forms over a set amount of time which the observer would choose to observe, something impossible to imagine in our heads in literal detail but which can be imagined as a sort of panorama or cross section of that seed's time in existence.

>Does the Universe count and measure?
Meaningless philosophical question, go back to /x/

>>12504901
When communicating with profligate plagiarists, one should not waste their stock in trade.

>>12504900
exactly! So do you think I'm completely wrong or nah?

>>12504917
It's an idea I've heard before and thought about myself but the problem is I have no idea how you can test it or mathematically prove time can be considered another dimension of space

>>12504760
flat 3D space and 1D time are as real as integers. It is meaningless to grandstandingly say "actually integers are just imagined by our limited minds, REAL truths are far beyond that" - we cannot think without integers.

>>12504925
same issue here desu. It's almost philosophical in that sense rather than scientific. Until we find a way to map out what higher dimensional perception would be like we're kinda fucked on this front. Could simply be something human minds are incapable of grasping even if we tried, like bunch of cats in front of a television.

>>12504925
>time is space too
pointless generalization that doesn't give us any new knowledge.

>>12504911
>all forms of measurement are relative
"Made up" in other words. Actually show me it!
>you could make the same exact point about height, length and width.
They're descriptions too, yeah.
>I don't see how that's relevant, to an observer capable of grasping 4D that "seed" would simply be seen as the aggregate of all it's forms over a set amount of time which the observer would choose to observe, something impossible to imagine in our heads in literal detail but which can be imagined as a sort of panorama or cross section of that seed's time in existence.
You can sit here and tell me "the passage of time" is what causes it to grow all you want, "Mulch, dirt, water and the sun" are the only things that are ever going to make the seed grow into a tree. These are things that actually exist, they're empirical. So are the things that will prevent the seed from taking root such as the cold weather, birds, etc. We made up time to keep track of things, which is useful and all but ultimately it doesn't actually exist as something or is a cause itself. We're built to be temporal and we attributed that passage of life to death as a "flow" or "force" and reify it as something itself. But it's not "time" causing us to die, just corruption and mistakes in the reproduction of cells. The loss of energy.

>Meaningless philosophical question,
Meaningless? Not as meaningless as trying to speak to a foreigner who doesn't understand your language.

>>12504930
>flat 3D space and 1D time are as real as integers
>If enbies don't exist then why are they so heckin cute and valid?
>we cannot think without integers.
Yeah but what is it that you're counting?

>>12504530
3D space doesn’t curve its 4d spacetime that curves. Your question is completely regarded delete this thread.

>>12504619
>>12504876
spacetime one word no dashes no capitalization

>>12504946
>Yeah but what is it that you're counting?
I'm counting that your sentence contains exactly 8 words. And space has exactly 3 dimensions.

Without integers, we cannot do ANY math.

>>12504959
fag

>>12504949
spacetime curves ... relative to what? YOU are regarded delete your internet.

>>12504935
They said that about the number zero too

>>12504971
relative to other spacetime

>>12504949
what's the difference between space and spacetime

>>12504949
>>12504980
I mean like I get space and time as two separate entities but what's "spacetime"
why are those linked together and not space and mass or something

>Curved? Curved how?

Doesn't curved space just mean distances contract and time slows down near matter and energy?

>You think it's a curved path in a flat space
>Actually I see a straight path in a curved space

Wow, really deep, Mr Einstein

>>12504530
Varying density of space. When two points travel parallel to each other and enter a denser region of space they are pushed towards each other.

>>12505099
How can you tell their are closer? Measured in a flat background space?

>>12505045
>be Einstein
>know nothing about math
>hear some math graduates speaking
>eavesdrop and they say something about "nonEuclidean geometry" and curves
>lightbulb.wav
>what if everything we thought was planar was actually curved
>you did it again Einstein
>you did it again

Yes yes, spacetime curves toward massive objects, very good.
Does anyone have any pontifications on what the actual mechanism of spacetime curvature/time dilation actually is?

Mass increasing can be interpreted as force diminishing, no?
Could time dilation be the result of the fundamental force of gravity experiencing constructive interference as particles come together, to a much greater magnitude than the other fundamental forces, thereby making them seem to diminish?
Like increasing the viscosity of spacetime, or putting particles under tension.
.

>>12504530
>how can I curve 3d space
Make a net in everyday world, it will be 3D
Drop a bowling ball into it
That's what gravity is

>>12504760
>blah blahblah sky is blue
what the actual fuck are you talking about you mongoloid

>>12505131
that's a curved 2d surface in a flat 3d space.

>>12505156
No, a 2D surface would be a drawing, the net is 3D because it's a physical object in our 3D world

>>12505131
that's 3d object on a 2d simulated surface
what you need is a simulated 2d object on a 3d surface
that's what we (3d) do on 4d spacetime

>>12504980
space is space usually talking about space as in 3D. spacetime is a 4D manifold

>>12504840
That doesn't make sense though, is the space compressing infinitely? If so, then why isn't everything in a constant state of collapsing into a singularity?
And if space isn't compressing infinitely, what is the limit and why hasn't gravity stopped somewhere at some point?

>>12505165
But OP, anything you touch IRL is a 3D object.
When you draw something it's 2D.

in your line of thinking though you could make a 10x10 3D rectangle with a net and still drop a bowling ball into it and witness what happens

>>12504530
it's just the stretched out void left after matter has condensed out of it

>>12505131
A hate the bowling ball image, it’s wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwgIjBUYVc
here you go

>>12505294
Just looking at the thumbnail of that video and I disagree. Our dimensions are a physical manifestation of the quantum world

>>12505279
why is it wrong

>>12505279
But that's what happens anon
The weight of a planet sucks in everything that gets close to it and we have evidence of this

All of it from einstein's imagination of a ball landing on a net.

>>12504530
Curved like they demonstrate in highschool anon
https://youtu.be/MTY1Kje0yLg

>>12505327
It’s misleading because the net is 3D, like jello or something.
And gravity is pulling the ball down first which is what that makes the net distort so it isn’t really a useful explanation of gravity.

>>12504530
how can nothing .space be curved?
space is just a synonym for nothing. yoo have somethign then you have nothing. thats physics

Spacetime is curved. 3D space is not. If it would, then 4 spatial dimensions should be. But they aren't.

Spacetime curve is a mathematical gimmick.

>>12505350
why doesnt the earth fall into the sun or what keeps it from flying away? there has been no noticable change. can you draw the graph for us which would explain how this isnt just a bunch of crap, and you probably will say, "dont take it literally". no we need to know WHy the earth doesnt or WONT fall into the sun. and its been here a long damn time too. youd think there would of been some planet by now making some moves.
that video is dumb

>>12504530
It means that if you split the 3D space into planes, the planes are curved along some axis.

>>12504846
>what is space
"The distance between two objects"
Can you understand the concept of nothingness
Ie if there are two objects in space there are two objects some distance apart and there is nothing between them.
>HOW
Gravity
>but by what mechanism
Not specifically known
>>12504873
Yes it's a bug, that image is elsewhere on 4chan

>>12504530
Inertial paths through spacetime are paths of maximum proper time. An observer reckons that these paths curve around large masses.

>>12505385
It is anon, give it a few billion years some marbles orbiting a weight placed on lycra moves much faster than the huge, huge weight of the earth compared to the huge, huge weight of the sun and also the super massive blackhole in our galaxy, the various moons, etc. These things all interact and are described by Einstein's hyperbolic geometry (which is just a model of the above.. not a 1 to 1 exact representation we can't do that in science)

>>12505407
yea you cant do shit but just believe you. ok then your full of crap. like who cares you do everythign by insinuating. so you just outted yourself as full of shit.
fuckers why do you claim to do science you are a detriment to civilizatoin, not meme society but what made hunter-gatherer level up tyupe stuff, trade. civilization.

>>12505405
what is proper

>>12505385
Momentum. Earth is constantly falling towards the sun. There is also sideways momentum that wants to shoot us away from the sun. But it isn't enough to overcome the sun's gravitational field.
Imagine a ball on a string. You swing it around in your hand. The string represents the gravitational pull of the sun in this example. If you let go of the string the ball flies away from you in some direction. If you don't let go, it continues to spin around your hand. Likewise, Earth's momentum (like the propensity for the ball to fly away if you let go) keeps it from crashing into the sun. But the pull of the sun keeps it from flying away.
Earth falls to the sun and it misses, before being pulled back by gravity for another round, where it falls and misses again.

>>12505417
ok you are literally attempting to get me to join a cult.
>just believe us no it doesnt matter if it doesnt make sense, no it doesnt matter if you find out anything or not, ever. money was made by the (we all know who) to trick the goys

>>12505421
Your lack of understanding is not my lack of sense.

>>12505425
you made one statement that it is doing one thign then you changed it and said its doing another. you are irrational. making no sense any to anyone. no we dont have to deal with shit talking,

>>12505410
As reckoned by the person in the moving frame.

>>12505417
>shooting
what caused the PUSH
>falling
your just wanting to have it both ways. what casues the earth to not fall into the sun or to not fly out of the solar system. it wouuld of flew away or fell in within a small amoutn of time if it was gongi to happen.
what you cant explain with your hocus pokus mathmagics is the force of pull. anyting touching anytign else is "off guards" for you. thats why quantum is about "discreet" particles.

>>12505409
'just believe' is called modelling the universe and writing a proof, then verifying the proof which has already happened.

You don't know this because you're not /sci/ and haven't put in any work to understand

>>12505442
your trying to have it both ways, calling the earths movement a momentum. ok but that doesnt explain the question why it doesnt fly off or fall into
so then you say well it shoots and it falls.
??? you didnt answer anythign and stole my own comment to prop yourself up. you have nothign to say. as in all of you you are all thieves
you are in a cult and you think i'm afraid of myself or hope that so. jeez LOSERS

>>12505433
I can't simplify this any further. >>12505439
>the push
Is momentum gained from gravity and energy conservation.
>what casues the earth to not fall into the sun
Momentum.
>out of the solar system?
The sun's gravity which is far stronger than the momentum of the earth.
>the force of pull
Depends on what you're describing when you say pull. The force of gravity acting on an object is F = G(m1*m2)/D^2, for F = force, G = the gravitational constant (pic), m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, and D is the distance between them.

Forgot pic

>>12505451
the sun isnt moving around us we are moving around it. why you move the goal posts? we dont need to redo this earth is the center of the universe church stuff again
this whole crap they have turned science into is just the same crap from wayback from the churches, but in reverse. everybody knows now.

>>12505451
you were asked one question. you concern yourself with it or just leave me alone. falls into or flies away, what causes it to not do that.
>earth used to be said to be the center of the universe. now instead they say, that they are the center of the universe.
you really play authority whore bag as hard as possible dont you

>>12505455
Nowhere did I tell you the sun is revolving around us. This is bait right?
>>12505458
It does both of those things, pay attention. I have already explained to you why it doesn't fly away and why it doesn't crash into the sun, in very simple terms.

>>12505451
the day of the rope is coming for you religious
pushing frauds in Science.
>>12505463
this is what you said, you couldnt explain why the earth doesnt fall or fly away from the sun so ou then started talking about the shooting you said claiming it was momentum. momentum? from moving. as in not being the center of the universe.. But you are saying the earth is the center of the univers and that the sun is moving and orbiting the earth, which amkes what your saying then make sense
hahaha. holy shit. ridiculous. in public you8'd be laughed out if it wasnt for yoru controlled audiences and stuff.
yea shootingand falling is the 2 thigns you said. then you called it momentum. meaning 0 momentum and just the geocentrism theory of th e10th century preachers.
DOTR

>>12505465
>why the earth doesnt fall or fly away from the sun
I literally told you "Earth is constantly falling towards the sun. There is also sideways momentum that wants to shoot us away from the sun."
Earth is an object that revolves around the sun. The pull of the sun (this is g r a v i t y) causes the earth to accelerate towards the sun. That motion is momentum.
>But you are saying the earth is the center of the universe
I am absolutely not saying that. To be clear, Earth is not the center of the universe and the sun does not orbit the Earth.
>in public you8'd be laughed out
Surely

>>12504530
Lol just elevate your perception beyond the dimensions it's embedded in it isn't even that hard.

>>12505471
>sideways momentum
momentum doesn't have a certain direction.
you just described what the earth does when it orbits the sun. your not explaining what cusaes it to not fly away or fall into the sun. why does it orbit the sun, without moving the goal posts to geocentric theory.
>the rope hypothesis. my explanation

>>12504530
Spacetime doesn't real.
Mass, distance, time, and all that good stuff is virtually encoded in the causal web of interactions of the massless particles that comprise literally everything. Massless particles don't experience distance or time, so the causal web is compressible to an infinitesimal point that has a mathematical structure but no volume, and which exists only in a single static instant.
The fun part is when the universe undergoes heat death, and all the massless particles end up on non-intersecting paths out of that point. This leads to the big bang of the next universe in the sequence as all those particles attempt to no longer be a point, but crash into the Higgs field or some shit like that.

>>12505479
There is no way I'm not being trolled right now.
I am not sure why you've even mentioned geocentrism.
>your not explaining what cusaes it to not fly away or fall into the sun.
Please read this carefully.
Earth does not fly away from the sun because the sun has a strong gravitational field that pulls us closer to it.
Earth DOES fall towards the sun, but doesn't crash into it. It misses the sun. The reason it misses instead of hitting the sun is because the Earth carries momentum that wants to fling it away from the sun. That momentum is still not strong enough to escape the gravity of the sun.
Try this right now. Don't make another post until you do. Get any object on a string, your keys, whatever. Swing them around in a circle around your hand. Them stop swinging and let it fall. Did it hit your hand? Or did it continue swinging for a brief moment and miss your hand? Same thing, but the swinging is caused by the sun (your hand's) gravitational field.

>>12505503
because you are not explaining any movement of the earth but you are including the sun in your explanation of nothing but pull and push of objects. you said momentum but didnt tell from were it came.
then its the SUN your talking bout obviuosly. stop with your fucking goal post switchign and trying to blame everyone for yoru lack of rationality of explanatoins. usual shit with idiot quantum/gr zealots

>>12505503
yoru just describing the same situation over and over again you dont give an explanation.
>rope
oh ok the rope hypothesis yes i came up with it myself too. yes if it wasnt for the orbit then that would be what would happen right. didnt explain why the orbit doesnt just fall into the sun or fly away.

>>12504791
>SO WE EXPERIENCE TIME AS A LINEAR PASSAGE OF EVENTS
But why am I experiencing the *now*?

>>12505507
The momentum comes from the acceleration of the earth towards the sun. That acceleration is caused by the sun's gravity.
>>12505510
Orbit is the revolution of one object around another.
Earth doesn't fall into the sun because the circular motion it's doing (revolution) makes the earth want to fly away from the sun. It's exactly the same reason why when you swing your keys around on a lanyard and let go, they fly away.
>but why doesn't it fly away then
Because the sun's gravity, which is pulling earth towards the sun, is stronger than the force that makes it fly away. I.e., when you don't let go of the string.

>>12505511
Because the universe is a static 4D object being displayed in sequence like a computer might display the contents of a DVD. Your consciousness exists on the meta-computer and is merely informed by the 4D structure of your brain, not generated by it.

>>12505535
we have already went over this, kys

>>12505563
Yes I know, it remains a mystery how you've failed to grasp it yet.

>>12504964
>I'm counting that your sentence contains exactly 8 words
Now show me a "word". You can, you can point to one in this sentence. It exists, this written element and can be expressed to convey a meaning. A good example of math being used, AND you can actually show me what it is you're counting

>And space has exactly 3 dimensions.
Now show me "space". Point to it. Show what it does, what it expresses. Oh wait, you can't. That's because you made it up, and are describing it with the "3 dimensions" you so accurately described (but have never been shown to actually exist). Things don't grow by extrusions locked to an arbitrary "xyz" coordinate system in nature is the problem.

>Without integers, we cannot do ANY math.
And without showing me what it is you're actually applying this math to, it's as useful as counting shadows. What is this "Space" that has been quantified as "having three dimensions"? It's a fucking mathematical description used to plug other mathematical descriptions into and nothing else.

>>12505136
It's a description you see. "The sky is blue". It's not even wrong. Neither is "SpaceTime is curved" or "Unicorns have horns". Descriptions you see, and accurate ones at that! It just has no meaning is all.

>>12505403
>"The distance between two objects"
So it's a measurement, not actually something

>Can you understand the concept of nothingness
LOL, of course not. What is it that's there to be comprehended?

>Gravity
That's a description of mass accelerating to mass. A repetition of the premise behind what I just asked. "Now why does the mass do that?"
>Not specifically known
Well, maybe it would be helpful to find that out so we can put an end these 300+ reply threads.

>Yes it's a bug, that image is elsewhere on 4chan
huh, so it swaps them? Odd.

>>12505568
look retard its obviuos to anyone and i have already babied you alredy over your little crybaby shit of geocentrism.
your a preacher not looking to explain but to convince people. since that is your only agenda fuck yourself. im not wastin gmy time again over this what momentum is, we alreayd are talking about orbits
your a piece of shit you have nothign to say to anyone you are going to fucking get killed like everyone else since you fucking think you can control mother nature. you dont explain you attempt to control things. if you cant control the narrative you move the goal posts. thats what were talking about here since you wont bother yourself with the question. so then you look to get everyone to convince you. and noone can stop you. and you think to yourself ,wow m so much better than all of these other people.
fuck off you cant explain orbits. instead you keep doing another description and you look to move the goal posts while doing it.
ill give you one last chance to give yourself some creed and redeem yourself and if not im nmot going to respond just ignore

>>12505563
i know what an orbit is you have bene asked 3 times now, you were asked to explain howor why the mechanism of the earth not fallinginto the sun or flying away.

ill do better op. i ll explain light
light is a Rope. you cant see it or touch it or anythign else. but how light works, is the ropes mechanism. torque. light is, a rope. connneting you to it.

>>12505570
>not actually something
Yes exactly there is nothing there. Objects and their forces (such as gravity) exist in space, but between them, there is nothing.
>Well, maybe it would be helpful to find that out so we can put an end these 300+ reply threads.
Ah yes let us just solve the biggest questions in physics in a 4chan thread. You can be in the Nature publication.
Also I'm not sure if it swaps the images or simply overwrites both with the same image. Might have to do with the properties of your image, I notice when this happens if I try posting the same thing again it will still happen.
>>12505575
Ok ok maybe you can tell us what your ideas are then.

>>12505607
light is a rope, it has a to and fro to it lgith does. just as a rope has 2 strands. we are connected to it by this rope. this rope you extrapolate from it, pull, and therefore gravity. then the blueprint of atoms.
there fixed most of everything.
yes i came up with that myself no im not that gaede guy. he did it in 2000. I did in 1988

>>12505612
i didnt come up with the atom build, i didnt spend long enough on it, noone to talk to when im 8 years old. spent the 2000's looking for someone to talk with it about. found gaede in 2014 or so.
wished id told terry davis about it. https://streamable.com/uo60f4
he probably i think would of got it. i wonder if what he means by space alien is the rocket that launches you into space, to isolate yourself with teh sun from everythign else, which is how you test on things which is what i did, used rocket boots... in my head. to uderstand what the sun or light is.

>>12505612
Light is a rope by earth is connected to the sun. Do I understand you correctly?
Ok if this what gravity is, then is gravity not dependent on light? And if so, then how do you account for black holes that emit no light yet have a very strong gravitational pull?

>>12505607
>Yes exactly there is nothing there.
>Objects and their forces (such as gravity) exist in space
>but between them, there is nothing.
>exist in space
But you've agreed with me that space doesn't exist. A measurement isn't something, what's between them is "the objects, the forces, whatever" sure. "Nothing" isn't "space", nothing is not even definable.

>Ah yes let us just solve the biggest questions in physics in a 4chan thread. You can be in the Nature publication.
>Let's cut out the appeal to authority because it obviously isn't working and substitute it with a bunch of anonymous people who are actually interested in the topic and not in making obtuse, irrelevant fame/fortune/funding projects that distract from the main objective.

"Yes". I doubt the scientific community is ready for their answer to contain "Nigger" in it though.

>>12505627
you extrapolte from the rope hypothesis, which is the explanation of what light is, these other things; gravity, what comprises an atom. its 2 strands so, one strand goes around the outside making the shell, the other goes through the middle, i didnt again come up with this part but i get it. gaede came up with that much. i was busy showing people what light is.
every atom in the universe is connected to every other atom with extended entities, ropes.

>>12505627
>fucking black holes
ah damnit. no thats not what is in the center of the universe. ropes explain it. the reason for the outside not wrapping around itself. everythigns connected by ropes. like a spider web, or a bicycle wheel the spokes. they use dark matter since htey cant figure anything about it out. the center of the galaxies just spits out what reaches there back to the outside of it, around and back to the end. why things make their way there? nothigns being pulled there just heading that way if it is. too close to one another and pulling on each other as they pass around being so close to the center. but it spits it back out again to the outer edge.
not my image of "the atom"

>>12505627
just extrapolate everythign from the rope hypothesis.

>>12505628
We would all be happy if you could prove what exactly gravity consists of. I hope you do it.
Space is just a name we use to refer to the nothingness between objects. There is no matter there. It's empty.
>>12505631
This is just string theory. If you can prove it, we will actually give you $1 million and a gold medal.
>>12505635
>the center of the galaxies just spits out what reaches there back to the outside of it
This sounds like it requires a 4 dimensional plane to be possible.

>>12505636
show us the math

>>12505638
prove? you dont prove in science, you explain ratoinally for thigns such as light and gravity. we cant see or touch or anythig light or other phenomena, so we assume.
thats the scientific method.
>>12505639
there is no math to explain qualitative stuff

>>12505644
>BRO ITS A ROPE
show us the "rope model" working with the math and we can see that this rope model is accurate

>>12505646
light is a rope. I cant show you light but you understand that by the sun., you understand what the sun is.
ask quantum those types of questions. why dont you ask them to explain what i have in this way. with that rigourous of an explanation. hell they cant even make sense enough to show you a basic udnerstandable model.

>>12505644
If what you're saying is true then it should also be true when you model physics mathematically. It should be true in our observations. It should be true all the time. So, tell us some examples of things that show it is true.

>>12505649
BRO ITS A ROPE
this is meaningless saying things are ropes because they are ropes is retarded. the reason why we say spacetime is a 4d manifold is because in the model if we make it a 4d manifold the math works and we are able to make good predictions. saying "dude its a rope" doesnt mean anything and does help model anything thus its retarded

>>12505646
here is the solar system, connected to the sun and to each other.
more ropes=bigger object=more gravity.
>>12505651
math has nothing to do with Science. just need to explain, math is the langauge of adverbs. and this shit is the reason why, the lack of clear ocmmunication that the world is so fucked right now. go get your grants and billions in tax dollars to make shit up in string theory
>>12505638
a rope isnt a string
>>12505653
i am saying that light is a rope. you got a better one then go for it.
i know the sun, that weird thing noone knows nothing about oh gosh what are you telling us? nothing hurdurrrrrrrr
i know. yep. well. you come up with something better. I dont feel i need to explain anything more since the sun is the oddest object we ALL know about. you make up stupid shit like black holes to pretend to be smart.

>>12505663
show us your model with light being a rope. and the math and make predictions.

>>12505663
>math has nothing to do with Science
No reply I just thought this was funny
>i am saying that light is a rope. you got a better one
Sure it's a particle called a photon. It is because I say it is, I don't feel a need to explain anything more

>>12505653
what do you need modeled? just extrapolate from the light is a rope; rope hypothesis, how gravity works, and how an atom is formed, and .. magnetism.
i thought of this but never came to the clear conclusion, gaede seems to say this, that its one of the threads from the rope, swinging out and grabbing on things as it swings by. if two magnets are pushing away from each other, its the rope skippers, jump ropes, swiging towards each other and smacking and pushing eahc other away
it feels and makes perfect ssense if you've eveer tested this yourself. its why i thoguht the same thing but couldnt model it right ever. but think its it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq9wDVFaJYo
and the sun should also be the thing in the world we know that has more of a control over everything more than anythign else. we can safely extrapolate other mechanisms from it as well.
>>12505666
Science isn't about predicting either. thats for horoscopes and fortune tellers. hahaa.
its back and forth, a rope, 2 strands. thats what i came to the realization of when i seperated myself from everything but only the sun.

>>12505668
you are literally just saying its a rope because rope make sense in your brain. show us your rope math.

>>12504876
>>12504880
>>12504884
explain wtf

>>12505667
photons make too many problems
go ask teh quantum guys these type of questoins
>
>>12505653
>4d.
>>12505672
no because of the mechanics it makes sense. the functioning of the sun, is explained by a rope
ok ill give some shit for you to shit and come back and ask me to use more math on..
ok i hold one end of the rope you hold the other, we are on seperate ends of the universe(metaphorically). i pull on it. you feel this pull, ... instantly. the speed of light. the force of pull.

>>12505675
one thing about all of these theories they make up is they expect an observer. so they can change up whats going on any time they want. and never be consistent and will never be rigorous.

>>12505681
>ok i hold one end of the rope you hold the other
I see this rope. Where's the rope between earth and sun? How big is it? What is it made of?

>>12505684
the force is called torque thats what light is, the torque of the rope.
u see the rope ok, were is the rope between earth and sun? it connects them to each other. >>12505663
there is a model of it of the solar system. ropes connect every planet to the sun. it connects every atom. that explains gravity. so eevery planet is connected to each other and the sun is conected to everyone of them.

I like to imagine curved spacetime by imagining blocks of spacetime that shouldn't quite fit together correctly but are put together anyway. It corresponds with the real theory in the limit where the block sizes go to zero. It has the advantage of allowing me to picture general curvature of full 3+1D spacetime without having to add imaginary extra dimensions.

>>12505715
its not hard for you to imagine nothing or "somethign with 0 size"?
your shitting everybody here nobody thinks your not insane. this is what a quantum mechanist does before he draws a math problem on a board.

>>12505721
No, the thing being imagined is the nonzero size case. It's important to understand that it's an approximation to the real theory though. But it gets better when you use smaller blocks.

>>12505724
you didnt say that. of course you want to switch it arond hoping you can fling some shit and get it to stick.
whatever. enjoy slavery.

>>12504971
Curvature means that parallel transporting a vector around a loop doesn't get back to the vector you started with.

>>12505726
You don't understand what a limit is.

>>12505729
you dont explain anything, you were saying one thing then changed it. you cant just change everything up and that is a limit on my nerves with you
what the fuck is this? its like you dont even do anything real math you do common core math. so youy can always come up with which answer is right. you expect me to be dumb enough to want or need common-core.

>>12505733
Must be the jews.

>>12505735
no, jews are like blacks in how they mimic or imitate what tehy see people do. see how the jews sell nothing worthwhile but only do usury?

>>12505741
You will never be a woman.

>>12505745
tldr the jews didnt invent usury either the vatican got them to do it. the vatican were the first ones to do usury. they use jews to get around taht pesky canon law against they cant do usury. so they use bigotry. really its thier own racism. tahts why you all are so hostile.

>>12504533
/thread
fuck Einstein and his bullshit

It's called curvature because the idea comes from the study of curved surfaces. Notice in pic related that the Gaussian curvature is measurable by angles drawn on the curved surface itself, for example by adding the angles of a triangle and seeing if they make 180. So even when there isn't any extra dimension (that we know of) that spacetime might be curved in, when we add up the angles of a triangle and it doesn't make 180 degrees, we call that curvature.

>>12504530
It's a model, nothing is curved. It's cope to pretend you get shit about forces.

>>12504946
>We made up time to keep track of things, which is useful and all but ultimately it doesn't actually exist

I mean yeah time isn't a necessarily the material cause of something, but it's definitely the formal cause, without the passage of time from our perspective a seed will always remain a seed because time is that by which we can observe change. You're too far up your own ass and I cba to keep typing out replies to your inane questions

>>12505638
>We would all be happy if you could prove what exactly gravity consists of.
"gravity" IS a description, specifically of mass accelerating to another mass. So "mass" is the only thing it "consists of". More specifically what matter does, but that isn't something. It's what something does.

>Space is just a name we use to refer to the nothingness between objects. There is no matter there. It's empty.
As long as nothing can somehow "warp" and "bend" then whatever. Call it whatever you want. Call it a unicorn fart

>>12505828
I suppose it comes down to what you believe shape and arrangement of form actually is. I don't believe there needs to be the inclusion of an external "dimension" or mode to cause the arrangement of something. More so that "time" is just the nature of all motion to be impelled to settle to an equilibrium that's never reached. What use is it to record that which never begins nor ends?

>>12505923
>so um uh basically it just depends on your personal preference and um fancey sciencey words

talk about a fucking cop-out kek

>>12504530
Well. If you don't have enough axis to represent a variable, you may use colors or volume regions like toponomy maps to represent the curvature of distorsion that a celest body may generate.

>>12504530
It's just a successful model. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

>>12504533
what does then?

>>12504530
Its like how a 2D surface can be curved, like a sphere or a wrinkled bedsheet can be curved. This can happen in 2D surfaces without having to imagine them as living "in 3D". This comes from Gauss
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorema_Egregium
So in the context of the theorem it may be a way to codify distances and angles between points by way of a curvature, which is just a mathematical object that codifies the same information.
Imagine you are crossing a flat steppe and suddenly theres a mountain that blocks your path. You either go around it, and measure a distance, or walk over it and also measure another distance to the other side. If you give a map of all the distances by all different routes, you are basically describing the shape of the mountain. So in space it would like an anomaly.. You try to go to some place but the distance is too short or too long... Like it takes more travel to cross certain parts of space. In relativity is more complicated because its 4D.

In view of instrumentalism, it doesn't matter if space is curved or not. assuming intrinsic curvature from objects with mass leads to models with good approximating ability, so we use it.
You could present the equations from GR and say they 'just look like' ones from math describing curvature, or you could say they are like that -because- space is curved. it doesn't matter. the equations work, that's what matters.

>>12504530
>I'm too retarded to understand 3-Dimensional space time
>But don't you dare say 4 dimensions exist!
You IQ must have at least THREE (3) digits to post here

>>12506011
>so um uh basically it just depends on your personal preference and um fancey sciencey words

When it comes to recording using arbitrary divisions of that which never ends nor begins, "yes".

>>12504530
>How can a 3D space be curved?
three dimensions are enough for the Riemann tensor to be possibly non-zero

>>12504530
>i can't into analogies

>>12504530
It's a curved space within time

>>12504530
It does not matter if spacetime LITERALLY curves into an additional dimension -- the point is that you can describe what will happen very accurately with a mathematical model that assumes it does.

It could actually be a case of "God just thought it would be funny to make spacetime look like it was curved" or something. That is not important, what is important is that if you make that assumption and use that set of maths, you can model and predict what happens in the Universe.

>>12510472
>It does not matter if spacetime LITERALLY curves into an additional dimension
spacetime being curved doesn't mean it curves "into an additional dimension". not at all. it's a common misconception though.

I always thought curvature is a dumb way to describe it.

I always think of it as space-time density.

Space is literally denser or less dense in places. Typically denser around matter. As if matter itself was just super dense space-time.

>Curved how?

>>12511534
kek
you and i are the smartest people itt

>>12504530
>What does "curved" Earth mean in physics? How can a 2D surface be curved? Curved how?

Curved space is like virtual distances being created in between points in space i.e. space is curved that there's point 1, A, and 2 where A is an integer between 1 and 2.

>>12504530
It's not really curved spacetime. It's the metric which are distorted.
The light, and in general anything moves according to the metric and those tend to get close to high concentrations of energy (including mass). That makes stuff get closer to those concepts and makes also time pass differently depending on the location (due to lightspeed constraints)

>>12511619
What's the surface of space made of that allows it to bend?

>>12511749
>Curved space is like virtual distances
This makes me believe it doesn't exist.

>being created in between points in space
>"Curved space is space"
I would imagine so, and probably could only imagine so.

>>12511183
>Space is literally denser or less dense in places. Typically denser around matter. As if matter itself was just super dense space-time.
If I told you it was "just the densities of matter", what would you show me that prove the existence of "Space" around said matter?

>>12510472
>That is not important, what is important is that if you make that assumption and use that set of maths, you can model and predict what happens in the Universe.
Does the universe do math though?

>>12508953
>I can't even show you proof of this thing I'm making a comparison to.
Which is why you have to resort to analogies

>>12504530
Mass-energy systems within space cause geodesies (tensors in a hyperplane) that are parametrized within Einstein's field equations which describes and models the behavior of accelerating frames over time and spatial localizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

>>12504530
Look up minkowski space.