/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12525318
do you ever wonder where you will end up in a few decades if you're still alive? do you think you will become a mentally ill schizo?

>>12525318
Is there a conversation you wanted to have here or did you just come to spout your schizo bullshit?

>>12525318
The quantum bait was thought out better, this one is mediocre

>>12525324
>>12525326
>>12525330
It's all density levels, brothers. You may as well substitute gravity with magic.
See my thread: >>12525151

Who cares what Tesla said? He wasn't a physicist and didn't even know much math. He was an electrical engineer.

>>12525318
we just had a convo bout anti gravity yesterday and now people forget about it? also that pic made me laugh.

>>12525318
>It's an assumption derived from no direct observation
Gravity is name for the observation that things fall when dropped. You are free to disagree on the exact explanations of gravity and how it works, but saying that gravity is false or fake makes you look incredibly stupid.

>>12525318
>It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. This goes against the scientific method.
Apple falls onto Newton’s head. Newton observes this event and figures that there must be something that causes things to fall to the ground. Names it gravity.

> Conceptually speaking, the idea of a gravity is only consistent in the scenario of a black hole of nothingness that sucks everything up of material substance indefinitely.
No, it’s what causes objects on earth to fall to the ground.

>>12525318
Just say you are a flat earther bro. The only people who are against gravity are flat eathers.

>>12525504
>>12525508
Gravity assumes that matter magically attracts other matter. Nonsense. Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air. A hot air balloon has a natural upward moving force because hot air is less dense.

>>12525562
The magnitude of buoyant forces relates to the volume of objects for a given mass. The magnitude of gravity forces depends only on mass. Also buyoancy is an effect of gravity, there are is no buyoancy in free fall or in orbit.

>>12525508
LOL! If an apple moves towards the ground, it is not "gravity," it
means the apple broke. Sheesh! Can't you understand anything that
hasn't been spoon-fed you by the gravitationalist pseudo-cult?

Gravitationalists have used millions of fake "experiments" to convince
the military and Congress of the existence of this so-called "force,"
so that they can net hundreds of billions of dollars a year on
crackpot devices such as airplanes, helicopters, and missiles, that
supposedly are exempt from their "universal" law of gravity because
they exert an "opposing" force.

Any moron can see straight through the gravitationalists' bizarre
claims. The gravitationalists say there is a force between the earth
and my computer moving it toward the center of the earth. Guess what
... the computer is STILL HERE.

But in case you want a mathematical proof, try this. The
gravitationalists say that the height of an object above the ground
will be x = h - 1/2 g t^2, with weight = mobject * g, and weight =
Gravconstant * mearth * mobject / distance^2. This means that the
height x = h - 1/2 Gravconstant * mearth * t^2 / distance^2. But the
same equations show that the earth will be falling toward the object
with height x = h - 1/2 Gravconstant * mobject * t^2 / distance^2.
Are there two different distances between the earth and the object?
Apparently the gravitationalists think so.

>>12525598
With such obvious mathematical proof against the gravitationalists,
you might wonder why no one has spoken up yet. The fact is, that many
have, but that the powerful gravitationalist forces prevent them from
being heard. When an experiment that would disprove gravity is
suggested, they do not allow it to be funded, or if it did have funds,
they would try to stop it from being carried out anywhere, and if it
is carried out they will make sure that the results are never
published and certainly that the experiment is never reproduced. And
so they can confidently tell the unwitting populace that "no
experiment has ever disproven gravity," and after thorough literature
searches no one can find anything but a few isolated experimenters,
whose names the gravitationalists had dragged thoroughly through the
mud a long time ago. And so people being gullible, and not taking the
initiative to think or experiment for themselves, blindly accept the
gravitationalist dogma as truth, and go about their day-to-day
business, while the gravitationalist cabal sinks its teeth deeper and
deeper into every taxpayer's pocket.

Isn't it a shame that science has sunk so low?

>>12525587
Nonsense. An object sinks in water because it's denser than water. It's all so simple.

>>12525318
huh? Haven't we literally measured gravitational waves from neutron stars? I thought our understanding is that gravity isn't real, it's just our abstracted mathematical understanding of spacetime.

>>12525318
>It's an assumption derived from no direct observation.
Not exactly. It's a directly observable phenomena but the mode by which it happens or is caused is unknown.
"mass attracts mass"-correct description
"because of the force of gravity"-incorrect conclusion based on no evidence. Nomenclatures sake so that "mass attracts mass" doesn't sound circular when repeated by (charisma science man on the television).

>Conceptually speaking, the idea of a gravity is only consistent in the scenario of a black hole of nothingness that sucks everything up of material substance indefinitely.
Which is also the reason why black holes don't exist either. Another meme we made up by looking at *everything that a blackhole isn't* in order to define what it is. Just like we did with space and time.

>>12525346
"Density" of what?

>>12525508
>apple evaporates in 2 weeks
Too bad the virgin didn't have that much attention span to make that observation

>Names it gravity.
I too can come up with multiple words for an unexplained phenomena. Any dungeons and dragons player can too.

>No, it’s what causes objects on earth to fall to the ground.
"Rock go to rock, me grug me smart"
Well that's a description, not an explanation. What causes the rock to go to another one, or rather each other? What is each mass mutually being accelerated towards?

>black holes don't exist
>gravity doesn't exist
Only in /sci/, we have the expert Nobel prizes here

>>12525681
Okay, want to play it that way? I'll take it back and leave it open for discussion.
If Gravity and black holes exist, then prove they do. Preferably by testing them in an experiment to show they're empirical in the first place.

>>12525699
Ok here you go, done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

>>12525711
>digitally altered representation of yet another experiment that "finds" and "studies" a blackhole by measuring everything that it isn't.
lol

>Wikipedia article listing all the ways gravity has be described
It's described, I get it. Now tell me the cause, dipshit. It's like describing all the ways a unicorn can exist and does exist, yet you never actually show me the unicorn.
>male-female hornshift causes the bending of fairy particles
Where's the fucking unicorn? All I see is a jackass.

>>12525601
If I drop two balls, both with different diameters but equal densities, they fall at an equal rate. They also do not immediately start at terminal velocity but have to accelerate.
Why is this if it's based on density? All objects should fall at rates proportionate to their density, and they should fall at maximum velocity - there should be no acceleration.

>>12525733
>digitally altered representation of yet another experiment that "finds" and "studies" a blackhole by measuring everything that it isn't.
Ok schizo, you can "digitally alter" i.e blur your monitor screen, doesn't mean what you are seing is not there.
>It's described, I get it. Now tell me the cause
This is a philosophical question, the task of physics is not to say how nature is, but about what we can say about nature. There are experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicors, you are just throwing False equivalence out of your ass here.
>All I see is a jackass.
You are projecting.

>>12525598
kek, making it seem like you just got motion equations off wikipedia without even taking one physics class, epic troll bro

>>12525699
literal first result on google
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

>>12525761
>Ok schizo, you can "digitally alter" i.e blur your monitor screen, doesn't mean what you are seing is not there.
It also doesn't prove "what it is" that's there. Other than a blurred fucking image anyway. So I guess you did prove something. That a blurred orange circle exist. What does that have to do with a black hole?

>This is a philosophical question,
No, it's a scientific one. I am asking for empirical evidence of your claims. You are not providing it, so fuck off.

>the task of physics is not to say how nature is, but about what we can say about nature.
Oh well I'm talking about science here.

>There are experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicors,
AND WHERE IS THE EXPERIMENT FOR "GRAVITY" YOU STUPID FUCK? You're deriding because you're bereft of an answer, just as space and time are bereft of properties that allow it to do the ass backwards shit GR claims it can.

>you are just throwing False equivalence out of your ass here.
If it actually classifies as a false equivalency it's because a unicorn and gravity have as much proof of existing as the other in that they don't exist. You're somewhat right in this instance, I can't really equate two things that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST. That's why I also asked for proof first and not your re-descriptions.

>>12525793
>balls attract balls
If they touch does it make them gay? What causes them to attract?
>gravity
yes, the mass does indeed accelerate to another mass. Now instead of restating the premise of my question over and over, please tell me what is the cause of the acceleration?
>I dunno but we can describe the change mathematically using a constant
Cool story bro, but that's not what I'm asking.

>>12525797
>I am asking for empirical evidence of your claims. You are not providing it, so fuck off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
There you go
>Oh well I'm talking about science here.
I have never heard of a scientist or a serious one that denies the existence of gravity, thus you are not talking about science.
>AND WHERE IS THE EXPERIMENT FOR "GRAVITY" YOU STUPID FUCK? You're deriding because you're bereft of an answer, just as space and time are bereft of properties that allow it to do the ass backwards shit GR claims it can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Here, read it.
>If it actually classifies as a false equivalency it's because a unicorn and gravity have as much proof of existing as the other in that they don't exist.
There's experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicorns, next.

>>12525797
Not original anon, but I'll bite.
>hurr durr image is blurry so you don't know
We can tell it's got a massive gravitational field, that it's got things orbiting it, and it shows all the properties of a black hole. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Screeching you don't believe it doesn't make it not so. Your own incredulity isn't science.
>empirical evidence
Cavendish experiment, gravitational lensing, orbital dynamics, and the fact that things all go down at a constant rate that is proportional to mass - not density. See the feather and hammer drop on the moon.
>where is the gravity experiment
Cavendish experiment. Also going outside and dropping objects and observing they all accelerate at the same rate - again, not at a constant speed proportionate to density.
>gravity and unicorns have the same proof
Once again, gravity is a daily observation. If you want to see unicornsn head to mlp, but they might even be too smart for you.

>>12525810
>what causes it?
Yes, gravity.
>lol that's not gravity - the mass attracts other mass, now what's the cause?
As far as I know, there is no "cause" - gravity is a property of matter. Matter "bends" spacetime, causing objects with mass to attract. We can describe this phenomenon, and we call it gravity.
>you're only describing the property mot explaining it
Exactly. Why is the sky blue? I can talk about light scattering and the properties that cause the sky to be blue, but I can't tell you why the universe chose to make those circumstances make something an ephemeral property we call "blue." At some point, everything boils down to "that's they way it is." There may actually be deeper reasons, but we haven't found them yet. However, that doesn't invalidate everything we do know.
But so far you'ce admitted that yes, gravity exists, but you don't like the term and can't accept that gravity is a phenomenon and not a physical, tangible thing. You're playing stupid word games, not doing science.

>>12525820
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Is not proof! It describes how it functions, but never shows what "it" actually is.

>I have never heard of a scientist or a serious one that denies the existence of gravity
I don't deny the DESCRIPTION that we refer to as "gravity". Yes mass attracts mass, it's observed to do this! Now WHAT IS THE CAUSE of why it does that? Why does it attract itself? "Gravity" is simply a name for the phenomena of mass accelerating to another mass.
>There's experiments of GR, there is no experiments of unicorns
"GR" is not an object or force to be negated you fucking retard. It's a description.

>>12525824
>We can tell it's got a massive gravitational field, that it's got things orbiting it, and it shows all the properties of a black hole. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Screeching you don't believe it doesn't make it not so.
>>12525661
>Another meme we made up by looking at *everything that a blackhole isn't* in order to define what it is

>and the fact that things all go down at a constant rate that is proportional to mass - not density
Because it's described that way. Now tell me why it falls. "Hurr cause gravity" restates the premise and leaves me no choice but to keep asking why because it's not an answer.

>Cavendish experiment, Cavindish experiment!
Which never explained why the fucking lead balls attract, merely documented and described the difference in a quantitative manner. Get it though the thick lead ball in your head.

>Once again, gravity is a daily observation
So is the blue sky. Why don't I ever hear of the "blue sky" force?

bjects with mass to attract.
How is space bent? What prope

>>12525931
>"Gravity" is simply a name for the phenomena of mass accelerating to another mass.
No shit retard, water is that transparent thing that is wet, wow bro I didn't know.
>WHAT IS THE CAUSE of why it does that? Why does it attract itself?
Science is about how, not why, why is about philosophy.

>>12525878
>gravity is gravity
And circular reasoning is circular
>As far as I know, there is no "cause" - gravity is a property of matter.
Then why do both accelerating masses accelerate towards a null point not located nor a part of either of said masses?
>Matter "bends" spacetime, causing objects with mass to attract.
What properties does "space" have that allows it to bend? Time is a measure, not something. Describing both as one, doesn't make it exist as something that does something.
>We can describe this phenomenon, and we call it gravity.
"Yes". Which is why gravity is a description, just like I've said for the past 6 or so posts.
>I can talk about light scattering and the properties that cause the sky to be blue, but I can't tell you why the universe chose to make those circumstances make something an ephemeral property we call "blue."
I'm not asking you to answer "why did the universe make mass exhibit gravity?". That would be admitting it exists and causes something. I'm asking for the proof of gravity as a force/cause in the first place. I keep getting the answer "well it is" but no proof. Just a described measure of acceleration. It's like calling an "inch" something. An inch "of what"?
>everything boils down to "that's they way it is."
Not science
>There may actually be deeper reasons, but we haven't found them yet. However, that doesn't invalidate everything we do know.
That being Gravity is a description, not a force.
>But so far you've admitted that yes, gravity exists,
as a description
>gravity is a phenomenon and not a physical, tangible thing.
Just like a shadow.
>You're playing stupid word games, not doing science.
If I wanted to do that, I would equate a descriptive word to something that exists and argue semantics over it rather then explain the cause.

>>12525937
>No shit retard, water is that transparent thing that is wet, wow bro I didn't know.
And gravity is the...shadow...of..See unlike water, gravity has no substance to even discuss. You can talk about the mass, but mass attracting other mass...well? What is in the null point where they accelerate to? Tell me what's there worth discussing over.
>Science is about how,
"How" does a mass attract another mass? Is that better?
>Well, uh it does so by this completely independent modality we refer to as "gravity".
No, you're fucking dumb. Gravity is a description of the change, not an account nor "the actual thing" that causes the fucking change in the first place.

gravity is what causes more dense objects to sink

>>12525745
>If I drop two balls, both with different diameters but equal densities, they fall at an equal rate.
>Why is this if it's based on density?
Sir...

>people are actually debating this guy
my, how far we've fallen

>>12525990
>gravity is what causes more dense objects to sink
Or is in the density of particular objects that put it in its proper place among equilibrium with other objects of various densities? Does oil float on water because of gravity?

>>12526022
>my, how far we've fallen
You mean, "my, how much we've succumbed to gravity"?

>>12525964
>>12525964
>thing a is thing a
Yes, that is a tautology, because that's how definitions work. Gravity is defined as the attraction between masses, so attraction between masses is gravity.
>not actually to each other but to a center
And now you've discovered what a barycenter is. Do some reading.
>what properties does space have allowing it to bend
That's for the physicists to talk about, but I'm sorry, your own incredulity does not invalidate them, retard.
>"hurr durr gravity is just a description"
ALL language is a description. Mass is the amount of matter in an object. Matter is non-energy "stuff" with mass. An a-flat is a spexific frequency. A cat is a mammal with cat-like qualities. Again, you're not doing science - just playing word games and pretending your own incredulity means anything.
>I'm asking for proof
And you reject all proof because you think gravity is a physical thing you can hold in your hands. Is inertia not real because we only measure and observe it? Velocity? Speed? No. These "exist" as properties of objects, and they are defined by measurements. Sorry you don't understand that, but ignorance isn't an argument.
>hurr durr "shadow"
Dumb example, idiot.
>semantics
That's exactly what you're doing. Gravity, like mass, inertia, and potential energy, is a property of matter. It is not something you can hold in your hands or put your dick into. Stop treating it like it is.

>>12526008
Sorry meant different diameters but equal masses, not densities.
These will fall at an equal rate despite having different densities. They should fall at a rate proportional to their densities and have no acceleration.

>>12525562
>Gravity assumes that matter magically attracts other matter.
It's directly observed, not assumed.

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

>Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air.
Why would that make it fall without gravity?

>A hot air balloon has a natural upward moving force
So "magic?"

>because hot air is less dense.
Not true. Away from Earth's gravity abs other large gravitational forces there is no force that separates densities.

>>12526118
>Yes, that is a tautology
So "gravity" is as much of a "thing" as a unicorn.
>Gravity is defined as the attraction between masses, so attraction between masses is gravity.
"Yes". Now how do masses attract? Is it because they love each other? Is gravity love?
>And now you've discovered what a barycenter is.
A measurement. Does a measurement cause something?
>That's for the physicists to talk about, but I'm sorry, your own incredulity does not invalidate them, retard.
You're the one who mentioned the notion that a vacuum/measurement somehow performs feng shui and produces the phenomena known as "gravity" which is absurd. If space is not a vacuum and time is not a measure, then what are they and what properties do they have that allow them to do this? If you don't know then don't mention it as if it were an answer.
>ALL language is a description.
And I am asking for "the thing" that isn't purely a description causing the phenomena you call "gravity". Yes I understand that the answer is going to come in the form of you describing (cause), but things that exist do so independently of monkeys observing them on a mobile rock. So do it. Don't just sit here and explain to me semantics. I'm not here to argue semantics, I want "the thing" you're attempting to argue semantics over.
>Is inertia not real because we only measure and observe it? Velocity? Speed?
All of those are effects caused by what mass does. Oh, and so is gravity. Now explain why mass does what it does to cause all those phenomena/measurements to exist in the first place.
>because other measurement said so (spacetime)
isn't even applicable. Measuring a measure isn't what I want, I want "the thing" that you're saying was measured.
>Dumb example, idiot.
It's a phenomena, it's observable, it's measurable. And yet, it is not actually a cause nor something of substance. It is caused, specifically by light. Gravity is CAUSED my mass attracting to mass. Now why the fuck does mass do that?

>>12526127
So two balls of different diameters, equal masses but different density? The denser one will reach the ground earlier. Child's play. You can test it for yourself at any time.

>>12526372
Not him but.
>A measurement. Does a measurement cause something?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
>So "gravity" is as much of a "thing" as a unicorn.
Show me a experiment about unicorns, otherwise your comparison is worthless.
>I want "the thing" you're attempting to argue semantics over.
Gravity is not a thing, is merely the name we give to phenomena experimented.
>Now explain why mass
>why the fuck does mass
Not science, science is about how, not why.

>>12526118
>Yes, that is a tautology, because that's how definitions work.
Oh boy, don't you know that a tautology is inherently meaningless? You aren't actually saying anything because you're literally repeating yourself.

>>12525987
>"How" does a mass attract another mass? Is that better?
>What is in the null point where they accelerate to?
Sure. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
> that causes the fucking change in the first place.
What causes it then bro? Your god? xD

>>12526462
All logical statements are tautologies. Tautology doesn't mean meaningless.

>>12526182
So as I understand it, the superstition surrounding gravity rests on a single dubious experiment that has never been *accurately replicated and is also dubbed as
>"the least precisely known among all fundamental physical"
Good going for ya, gravity nut.

>>12526590
*the least precisely known among all fundamental physical constants
>>12526503
>A is A, B is B, red is red, birds are birds and gravity is gravity
Oh yeah, very enlightening.

>>12526590
>So as I understand it, the superstition surrounding gravity
Meaning what?

>rests on a single dubious experiment that has never been *accurately replicated
It has been accurately replicated thousands of times.

>"the least precisely known among all fundamental physical"
So what?

>>12526447
>Show me a experiment about unicorns, otherwise your comparison is worthless
>>12525797 >You're somewhat right in this instance, I can't really equate two things that DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.

>Gravity is not a thing, is merely the name we give to phenomena experimented.
Which is exactly the same thing I've been saying

>Now explain why mass
>why the fuck does mass
>Not science, science is about how, not why.
There you go with the semantics again. "How does mass" since you're such a fucking sperg.

>>12526489
>Sure. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
You're linking the theory that provides yet another redescription of gravity again and thinking it explains the cause. Also this doesn't explain or prove how "space" and "time" has properties to be bent, or act on anything for that matter. As an anon in this thread poitined out earlier, "that's a matter better suited to be talked about by physicists" which is an accurate statement because a physicist studies a host of batshit insane ideologies about things that have never been empirically shown to exist.

If they're accelerating towards a "null" point then what's there is "null". It's "null" causing you're stupid gay ball touching matter phenomena. At least that's where the matter is accelerating towards. Wonder why? Or rather "how" for semantics sensitive anon?

>What causes it then bro? Your god? xD
YEAH THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING. Then when I correct people when saying gravity is just another description for the phenomena I'm inquiring about you pretend that's an answer to the question. Maybe it's "your god"? Maybe it's jello pudding, or the flying spaghetti monster. Even if it did have to do with density, it still doesn't answer where or how different densities end up in different areas/places. Much like how asking "How much levity/gravit" does x have" doesn't tell me why "matter" attracts/is repelled by other matter.

>>12526602
>Oh yeah, very enlightening.
That's nice, now show all logical statements are meaningless.

>>12526688
>You're linking the theory that provides yet another redescription of gravity again and thinking it explains the cause.
It explains that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime.

>Also this doesn't explain or prove how "space" and "time" has properties to be bent, or act on anything for that matter.
It observably has those properties. You're assuming that they don't have these properties by default and that having them therefore needs to be "explained."

>a physicist studies a host of batshit insane ideologies about things that have never been empirically shown to exist.
What exactly in this thread hasn't been empirically shown to exist? General relativity is a completely empirical theory.

>It's "null" causing
Being the point which the objects accelerate toward does not indicate it is the cause of acceleration. You are a simpleton.

>>12525318
Relativity is just a model. A successful model. The equation doesn't have to have anything else to do with reality other than predictions made by the equation tend to be successful. The moment it starts to fail in prediction or some observations are made that the equation can't predict is just the moment the equation is modified and replaced. Meanwhile people will continue to use Einstein-Hilbert equations for the things it works for while showing it's a special case of whatever the new equation would be, then the new equation would be used for predictions that do not come from Einstein-Hilbert.

>>12526773
>It describes gravity being caused by the model of the curvature of spacetime.
"Space" has no properties and acts upon nothing. Time is a measure. How you can bend either has yet to be shown.

>It observably has those properties.
No it doesn't! Neither space nor time has been put into an experiment to show so. "Time" is a tool used to record in most experiments, a measurement. It records change. There's no proof of it being a cause or a flow or something that acts upon something else.

>You're assuming that they don't have these properties by default and that having them therefore needs to be "explained."
>you want proof of the claim
"yes" you moron.

What exactly in this thread hasn't been empirically shown to exist?
Space and time

>General relativity is a completely empirical theory.
It's a description, a model. It describes a lot of things that have never been shown to empirically be something.

>Being the point which the objects accelerate toward does not indicate it is the cause of acceleration.
SO
WHAT
IS
IT
THEN?
Is all I'm asking brah.

>You are a simpleton.
Well shit, you obviously don't know either.

>>12526788
>this poster most likely believes that GPS actually works using Einsteins velocity composition laws
>this poster also most likely believes that anything other than a refrigerator improvement patent has come out of the "big brain" of Einstein

Well at least he had accurate descriptions. I can do that too. "The sky is blue", gibe Nobel plz.

>>12526662
https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurement
>Despite the latest improvement in precision, the reason (or reasons) for the discrepancies between G measurements remains a mystery
lmao

>>12526093
>You mean, "my, how much we've succumbed to gravity"?
fuggin kek

>>12526855
>"Space" has no properties
Empirically wrong. Try again.

>Time is a measure.
No, time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie.

>How you can bend either has yet to be shown.
It's been shown over and over again that mass and energy bend it. If you have an argument against the mountains of empirical evidence for GR, then give it. Otherwise, stop talking out of your ass.

>No it doesn't! Neither space nor time has been put into an experiment to show so.
Every experiment related to GR has done so. Try again.

>"Time" is a tool used to record in most experiments, a measurement.
A measurement of time is a measurement, time is not a measurement, it's what you measure. Dumb schizo.

>There's no proof of it being a cause
GR is an empirically proven scientific fact, get over it.

>"yes" you moron.
Good, so you recognize the incorrect assumption making you ask stupid questions.

>Space and time
They have been empirically shown to exist for thousands of years.

>It's a description, a model.
Yes, and a completely empirical theory.

>It describes a lot of things that have never been shown to empirically be something.
Like what?

>SO
>WHAT
>IS
>IT
>THEN?
Curved spacetime.

>>this poster most likely believes that GPS actually works using Einsteins velocity composition laws
Not him, but GPS definitely uses relativistic corrections. The satellite clocks get slowed down to account for time dilation caused by speed and gravitational effects, and they receive updates from a base station to account for the relativistic effects unique to each satellite.

>>12526934
So what?

>>12526976
My man, either you're some freemasonic shill with government ties or you're not very bright. There is nothing that density levels leave unexplained when it comes to observing naturally falling and rising objects on earth.

>>12527164
You're not answering the question, so I'll just assume you have no answer and you're just posting non sequiturs. The gravitational constant is hard to measure because it's weak compared to other fundamental forces and there are more sources of error. But it's still known to a very high degree of accuracy.

>There is nothing that density levels leave unexplained when it comes to observing naturally falling and rising objects on earth.
And gravity completely explains that and much much more, so your claim is irrelevant. Masses are attracted to each other independently of falling/rising on Earth.

>>12525346
Density only explain effects of gravity. Why something sink and something floats specifically. But not why there is up and down at all

>>12526973
>Empirically wrong
Not Empirical, hence correct. There is nothing empirical that proves the existence of space, as something that has properties. As a model, sure.

>No, time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie.
According to a theory/model. Not in reality.

>mass and energy bend it
And that's "space"? "Time"? What is "energy"?

>If you have an argument against the mountains of empirical evidence for GR, then give it.
I'm not arguing over the non existent proof that space has properties. GR describes it as so, but has never shown so. It's "accurate" according to its own axiom, that being the assumption that space does something.

>Every experiment related to GR has done so
Nope. Try again.

>A measurement of time is a measurement
>time is not a measurement, it's what you measure. Dumb schizo.
Lol. So show me "what it is" that you're measuring. You can show me an inch of wood, a square meter of grass, but can you show me a second of time? It is not "of something". It's "of a measure". In the case of seconds it's "intervals of what cesium atom does".

>GR is an empirically proven scientific fact
>confusing a theory for a fact
Not science

>Good, so you recognize the incorrect assumption making you ask stupid questions
I'm not assuming shit doesn't exist with no proof. Is it a stupid question because you don't understand it?

>They have been empirically shown to exist for thousands of years.
So has a shadow

>empirical theory.
How many contradictions are you up to now? I've lost count.

>Like what?
space, a photon particle, gravity as an independent force. A host of things.

>Curved spacetime.
Well according to the belief system of GR, "yeah okay whatever". I guess I'm going to have to ask someone who doesn't belong to that religion for a real answer.

>Not him, but GPS definitely uses relativistic corrections
I bet you believe that. It's one of the main coping mechanisms that fails at being a cope because it's not how it actually works.

>>12527397
I admire your patience. These people deny without actually trying to contradict what you say. Blinded by arrogance they prefer lies over the possibility of being wrong.

>>12527397
>Not Empirical
Wrong.

>There is nothing empirical that proves the existence of space, as something that has properties.
You're retarded. Space is empirically studied every day.

>According to a theory/model. Not in reality.
Doesn't follow. Every description of reality is a model. The only difference is that some models are supported by evidence while others are not. GR is supported by a massive amount of evidence. Your schizo babble is supported by 0 evidence.

>And that's "space"? "Time"?
What is "that" referring to? Your question makes no sense.

>What is "energy"?
The capacity to do work.

>I'm not arguing over the non existent proof that space has properties.
Right, you're arguing over the massive amounts of existent evidence that space has properties.

>GR describes it as so, but has never shown so.
Empirically proving GR is the same as showing that spacetime curves, since that is what every prediction of GR is based on. Again, if you have some alternate theory that makes the same predictions based on something else, do it already. Until then, fuck off schizo.

>It's "accurate" according to its own axiom
No, it's accurate according to massive amounts of empirical evidence, which you have no argument against. Sad!

>Nope.
Wrong.

>So show me "what it is" that you're measuring. You can show me an inch of wood
You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time. An inch is a unit of space. If you don't think space exists then an inch is already meaningless. Dumb schizo.

>In the case of seconds it's "intervals of what cesium atom does".
You're so fucking stupid. An interval is by definition an amount of time or space. It's like you're trying to navigate on an x-y graph while denying that the axes exist.

>confusing a theory for a fact
GR is a theory and a fact.

>>12526602
>gravity, or gravitation, is the observed attraction between two objects with mass, as observed in everyday occurrence by objects falling at the rate of 9.8m/s^2 and in more precise experiments such as the Cavendish experiment or through phenomena such as orbital mechanics or gravitational lensing
>therefore, attraction between two masses is gravity
Your argument then either becomes "WAAAH TAUTOLOGY" or "but that's not gravity" because you have some absurd definition of it that no one anywhere outside of your Dunning-Kruger addled psyche uses.

>>12527397
>I'm not assuming shit doesn't exist with no proof.
That's exactly what you're doing. You're assuming space has no properties with no proof, and in denial of the evidence to the contrary. One of those would make you stupid, both at the same time makes you retarded.

>So has a shadow
Yes, and?

>How many contradictions are you up to now? I've lost count.
0, you can't count.

>space
>a photon particle
Both empirically proven.

>gravity as an independent force
Independent from what?

>Well according to the belief system of GR
Not a belief system.

>I bet you believe that.
It's not what I believe, it's proven:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2.pdf

>>12527530
>You're retarded. Space is empirically studied every day.
Just study a shadow, it's much closer and easier to see.

>Doesn't follow. Every description of reality is a model.
I suppose. "A unicorn has a horn" is as true a statement as "spacetime is warped". Now actually show me the horn.

>GR is supported by a massive amount of evidence.
yeah well saying "Spacetime is warped", and "light speed is constant" doesn't magically make it so. Prove it for once.

>Your schizo babble is supported by 0 evidence.
I asked for evidence of claims. Mostly anyway.

>The capacity to do work.
Yeah well "the capacity to do work" can bend a lot of things. All of them have to exist first. I can bend an iron rod. Now what is "space" made of that allows it to bend? What properties does it have? Plasticity? Tell me, don't just keep repeating yourself.

>you're arguing over the massive amounts of existent evidence that space has properties.
I am asking for the evidence, and arguing over your non evidence that you keep posting. All you do is post descriptions after descriptions. It's not evidence. Just pull out some fairy tales and start listing off the characters while you're at it, it's as useful as repeating "spacetime is warped" over and over like a drunken bum.

>No, it's accurate according to massive amounts of empirical evidence, which you have no argument against.
"Show it"

>You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time.
>units
Yeah. A fucking measurement, stupid.

>An interval is by definition an amount of time or space.
So it's a measurement, you fucking retard,

>It's like you're trying to navigate on an x-y graph while denying that the axes exist.
LOL. Okay, IRL is CAD now. I can lock my couch to the x coordinate in my house and move it around and program my acorns to extrude in the z coordinate as oak trees. You're so detached from reality, it's astonishing.

>theory and a fact.
"theory" means "guess" moron.

>>12527605
>You're assuming space has no properties with no proof,
Correct. I have no proof of space having properties so I am assuming it has no properties. How do I prove that something exists and does something when it has no properties? I can't. That's why I leave it as an assumption and ask for proof of the contrary.

>denial of the evidence to the contrary
You saying "Spacetime is warped" is not proof of anything other than the existence of the fucking model itself, let alone "Space" or "time". It's completely arbitrary to balance the math.

>Yes, and?
Exactly. A shadow isn't a cause, or it's not the cause of what you're seeing. A shadow does not cause a shadow, just like how "mass attracting" may not necessarily be because of the mass itself. The null point where the mass accelerates towards, perhaps. That isn't "the mass" now is it?

>0, you can't count.
And you can't count "space". Quantify it as something without just saying it is or that "hurr it's warped". What's warped? The absence of properties? What the fuck is space?

>uh warped
"vacuum geomancy" is about as close as you've gotten so far and it's fucking absurd. Oh with the "addition of a time dimension" whatever the fuck that means. How time is "Dimensional" is beyond me. What are the coordinates of time if it's dimensional?

>Both empirically proven.
You keep saying that...but never showing it.

>Not a belief system.
The foundation of the belief system actually assumes that light travels in the first place, and has a constant speed.

>>12525324

You know something strange. There is a behavior all astronauts have. As I’ve been told. Especially if they been in space for far too long. We think of gravity as a pull to the ground but never as a specific coordination. If you’re lying in bed for example on earth you know your back meets the bed meets the floor that meets the ground. In space it is different your mind looses balance. You don’t know where up down left and right. There is no guiding force. You will definitely feel it because blood will flow differently. Inertiatic instinct. Sometimes I have nightmares of being in space in my little capsule. Away from the workstation. And I look through a window. And I get crazy because I don’t know where up down left and right. All I know is learned approximation. But it’s hard to balance that information when your mind can’t keep what’s in front of you steady. How ever it does a good job doing because of learned behavior but not before you panic because it’s Temporary. Because your body feels the difference.

>>12527397
Using your logic, I could literally disprove that cats exist because, even though someone could observe and measure a cat in front of them, it's not actually a cat - just a mass of atoms and electrical interactions that we label as a "cat" because we're deluded into believing cats exist.

>>12527781

Even if it’s a dream it makes you think about life on Earth. You begin telling inanimate objects to stay because you think they are going to move. But in reality it’s just your mind.

>>12527715
>Just study a shadow
Not an argument. Try again.

>"A unicorn has a horn" is as true a statement as "spacetime is warped"
What empirical studies have shown unicorns with horns?

>Now actually show me the horn.
You've already been shown. You're in denial.

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

>yeah well saying "Spacetime is warped", and "light speed is constant" doesn't magically make it so.
Right, the mountains of evidence for GR make it so.

>Prove it for once.
It already has been proven. Pick up a textbook.

>I asked for evidence of claims.
No, you spouted a bunch of schizo nonsense and claimed empirical science isn't empirical.

>All of them have to exist first.
First? You mean they have to exist at a TIME before they are bent? Wow it's almost like you're incapable of saying anything about physics without admitting spacetime exists. Dumb schizo.

>Now what is "space" made of that allows it to bend?
It's not "made of" in the first place, since it's not matter. It's simply a categorical error to assume that space is like other things that you bend. Dumb schizo.

>What properties does it have?
Curvature, 3-dimensionality, local density, etc.

>Tell me, don't just keep repeating yourself.
I have to keep repeating myself because you're in denial and keep repeating the same lies over and over.

>I am asking for the evidence, and arguing over your non evidence that you keep posting.
No, you're denying the evidence exists. You've already been given the evidence.

>All you do is post descriptions after descriptions.
That's called communication.

>Yeah. A fucking measurement, stupid.
Units aren't a measurement. They are used to express a measurement. Go back to elementary school.

>So it's a measurement, you fucking retard
A measurement of an internal would be a measurement, you fucking retard. Intervals exist regardless of whether you measure them.

>Okay, IRL is CAD now.
So schizos can't understand analogies.

>>12527751
>I have no proof of space having properties
It's already been given to you.

>How do I prove that something exists and does something when it has no properties?
You don't. Fortunately, that doesn't describe spacetime.

>That's why I leave it as an assumption and ask for proof of the contrary.
You falsely assume it and ignore proof of the contrary. Why assume it if you don't know? Because you're a schizo.

>You saying "Spacetime is warped" is not proof of anything
Right, GR being empirically proven over and over is. Dumb schizo.

>A shadow isn't a cause, or it's not the cause of what you're seeing.
I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur. You're just making more idiotic assumptions without reference to any scientific model. Do you think it's because anything caused by a shadow is really caused by light? OK, so what is the equivalent of light with respect to gravity? What is the duality of which gravity is the "nonexistent" part?

>A shadow does not cause a shadow
Where did I say gravity causes gravity?

>just like how "mass attracting" may not necessarily be because of the mass itself.
That's not analogous. Masses being attracted to other masses isn't "X causing X." Do you understand the difference between causation and attraction?

>The null point where the mass accelerates towards, perhaps
No. I have no idea why you are obsessed with the null point.

>And you can't count "space".
Right, you just measure it.

>Quantify it as something without just saying it is or that "hurr it's warped". What's warped? The absence of properties?
>"vacuum geomancy" is about as close as you've gotten so far and it's fucking absurd.
Having a mental breakdown? This is gibberish.

>How time is "Dimensional" is beyond me.
You just described things happening "first" so I doubt it's beyond you.

>What are the coordinates of time if it's dimensional?
It depends on what metric you use.

>You keep saying that...but never showing it.
Lie.

>>12527751
>The foundation of the belief system actually assumes that light travels in the first place, and has a constant speed.
Not assumed, empirically proven. Dumb schizo. You're projecting your pathetic style of dogmatically adhering to assumptions onto empirical scientists. It's never going to work since we have evidence and you don't. The fundamental difference between science and your schizo delusion is the former is constantly testing itself against reality while the latter must constantly avoid reality in order to survive.

>>12527715
>"theory" means "guess" moron.
It's the opposite. A theory is an explanation that has been repeatedly validated through empirical testing. Why are you on the science board if you can't even get basic terminology correct? It's funny how you schizos all make the same mistake about a theory "being just a guess" no matter what you're denying. Are you a creationist flat earther as well?

>>12527817
>I could literally disprove that cats exist because, even though someone could observe and measure a cat in front of them, it's not actually a cat - just a mass of atoms and electrical interactions that we label as a "cat" because we're deluded into believing cats exist.

Now do the same for space. How many atoms and electrical interactions are in space causing us to label it as something specific? For if what you say is true, the cat is at least composed of something substantial to be discussed. It has a foundation, it isn't in privation.

>>12527905

>Not an argument
No shit. Nothing of substance to argue over

>What empirical studies have shown unicorns with horns?
and of "curved space"? Again, I understand it's DESCRIBED. Now show what you're describing.

>posts the article from the website that tells you they don't take an editorial role, yet again
And again I tell you "I get it, it's described". Now what meaning does it have?

>Right, the mountains of evidence for GR make it so.
No experiment on earth has ever been performed that proves light has a speed, or travels for that matter.

>First? You mean they have to exist at a TIME before they are bent?
They have to "exist". Whenever, wherever. Show they exist

>It's not "made of" in the first place,
Neither is a shadow and a fucking unicorn bro. Don't let me stop you from roleplaying in fantasy land though.

>It's simply a categorical error to assume that space is like other things that you bend.
Just like it's a categorical error to assume that space has properties, amirite?

>Curvature, 3-dimensionality, local density, etc.
In the model of "Spacetime" sure. But show it in real life please. What is "space". Density? How dense is space? I thought it wasn't "made of". How can it be dense?

>you're in denial and keep repeating the same lies over and over.
Asking for proof when given simple descriptions is not a lie.

1/2

>>12527905
>Units aren't a measurement. They are used to express a measurement
>>12527530
"You're already showing that you know what it is by using units of space and time"
>units of space and time
Yeah. Units "of" a measurement. They're expressing the measurements "space and time".

>A measurement of an internal would be a measurement, you fucking retard.
"Yes"
>Intervals exist regardless of whether you measure them.
INTERVALS "OF WHAT", STUPID? OF SPACE? WHAT THE FUCK IS SPACE?

>So schizos can't understand analogies.
So space is now an analogy?

>>12527995
>Fortunately, that doesn't describe spacetime.
I'm talking of the real thing "Spacetime" is allegedly modeling. Such a wasted effort modeling that with no properties.

>Why assume it if you don't know?
I do know. I know it has no properties to assume.

>Right, GR being empirically proven over and over is.
>*light passes through glass

>I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.
There would be no properties for occurrence.

>You're just making more idiotic assumptions without reference to any scientific model.
"null" has no model. It is "null".

>OK, so what is the equivalent of light with respect to gravity?
both are electromagnetic phenomena.

>What is the duality of which gravity is the "nonexistent" part?
It's what something else does. Mass specifically...which is also an electromagnetic phenomena.

>Where did I say gravity causes gravity?
We're on the same page about gravity being a description so I should just leave it at that.

>No. I have no idea why you are obsessed with the null point.
Well it's where the fucking masses are going. Don't you think that would be the cause? The center of magnitude?

>Right, you just measure it.
measure what? An inch of wood, a acre of grass...what is space?

>uh just measure it, it's curved
doesn't satisfy it

>This is gibberish.
it's not a vacuum? What is it then?

>You just described things happening "first"
>order is time

>>12527397
>this schizo is saying photons don't exist

>>12528102
>Nothing of substance to argue over
Great so you admit space is empirically studied every day.

>and of "curved space"?
Every study related to GR.

>Again, I understand it's DESCRIBED. Now show what you're describing.
You've already been shown the tests of GR. Nothing more is needed. Dumb schizo.

>No experiment on earth has ever been performed that proves light has a speed
You truly are delusional. Take your meds.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

>Whenever, wherever.
Thanks for again admitting time and space exist. Retard

>Neither is a shadow and a fucking unicorn bro.
Shadows clearly exist and unicorns have no evidence of existing. What is your point you dumb fucking schizo?

>Just like it's a categorical error to assume that space has properties, amirite?
I never assumed space has properties, it's empirically proven. Dumb schizo.

>In the model of "Spacetime" sure.
Right, the model that's been empirically proven. The empirical evidence you competent fail to respond to every single post. Dumb schizo.

>But show it in real life please.
It's shown to you every time you measure it.

>What is "space".
3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie.

>Density? How dense is space?
The scale factor is currently 1 and growing larger.

>I thought it wasn't "made of". How can it be dense?
It has a metric expansion, which means it is getting less "dense" over time. In other words, the distances between points of space are increasing.

>Asking for proof when given simple descriptions is not a lie.
Claiming you never got proof is a lie.

>>12528102
>cats are composed of something substantial
Look at this buffoon believing atoms are "substantial." 99% of a "cat" is actually empty space. Sure, you can tell me how long the "cat" is or how much the "cat" weighs, but can you really tell me what a cat is.
I doubt it. You could only describe the cat, which, as you've stated, isn't meaningful. Therefore the cat is not real and any attempt to prove it is shows you've just bought into the stupid delusions of normies and pet store owners who make billions off the lie that are cats.

>>12525598
Jump from a high place an see what happens

>>12528148
>Units "of" a measurement. They're expressing the measurements "space and time".
No, measurements of space and time.

>INTERVALS "OF WHAT"
Of space and time. Dumb schizo.

>WHAT THE FUCK IS SPACE?
Already told you.

>So space is now an analogy?
No, where did you get that idea? Try to keep up, read my post again. The analogy was you trying to navigate an x-y graph while denying the axes exist.

>I'm talking of the real thing "Spacetime" is allegedly modeling.
How do you know this real thing doesn't have properties?

>I know it has no properties to assume.
How? You must have some logical or empirical argument.

>>*light passes through glass
???

>There would be no properties for occurrence.
You're spouting gibberish again. Try responding to what I said:

I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.

>"null" has no model. It is "null".
Why would the absence of light have no model?

>both are electromagnetic phenomena.
Completely wrong. Gravity is much weaker than EM, is purely attractive, doesn't have charges, is quadrupolar rather than dipolar, is related to inertia, etc.

>Mass specifically...which is also an electromagnetic phenomena.
Ah, so surely you have a model with more empirical support than GR. Please present it already. I've been asking you to do this throughout the thread.

>We're on the same page about gravity being a description
So you were just babbling.

>Well it's where the fucking masses are going. Don't you think that would be the cause?
No, unlike you I don't make baseless assumptions. When you see two cars moving towards each other do you think the point between them is pulling them? Dumb schizo. Look in the mirror next time you criticize someone for not proving something.

>measure what? An inch of wood
What is an inch?

>doesn't satisfy it
Doesn't satisfy the schizo.

>it's not a vacuum?
What is? Use English, schizo.

>>order is time
Ordering events by time means events lie in time.

Bumping because I want to see this retard continue to try and prove that gravity doesn't exist because he can't touch it.

>>12529732
It doesn't though. Set your arrogance aside for once and try to think of a situation that density levels can not explain when it comes to falling (or rising) objects. Be open minded, entertain the thought.

>>12529891
I can think of three ways to explain how density is not the factor.

1) When you shake up a water bottle and drop it, the bubbles rise far more slowly - nearly stopping. In 0G, they cease rising entirely. If this were due to density, the motion of the water bottle should have no effect on the bubbles, but it does, showing it's at the very least not just density doing the work.
Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YDXQ-VBjW7Q

2) If you take two objects of different density, they fall at the same rate. This should be impossible if it was due to density.
Videos:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KDp1tiUsZw8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs
Keep in mind these are both in vacuums to remove the variable that is , but you can do similar experiments with things like basketballs and bowling balls.
Also, by your logic, things should not fall at all in a vacuum, as they would have no medium through which to move according to their density.

3) Objects accelerate as they fall. This is a known fact. However, if it is due to density, why do they accelerate? They should simply begin falling at a speed proportional to their density.

Ta-da. Three big reasons as to how "density" is not the cause. That is not arrogance - that is observation.

Even if you do "entertain the thought," attempting to derive equations for the "density as a force" idea will require the introduction of a coefficient equal to gravitational acceleration.
Video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RYeUFqVfb2A

It is not "arrogance" to reject an idea that has no legs to stand on after it fails to hold up to observation. That is how science is done, in fact.

>>12529891
It doesn't explain any rising or falling object since the only reason objects of different densities rise and fall is because of gravity. Gravity can be observed universally, not just in the narrow context of rising and falling with respect to the Earth, which makes your explanation obsolete.

>>12529982
Tell me how helium balloons and hot air balloons rise because of gravity?

>>12530008
Because, due to gravitation, the denser cold air falls beneath the balloon, which is filled with less dense hot air. In the absence of gravitation, these densities would coexist as masses without moving in any direction.
Density is merely the result of having enough matter in a certain amount of space. It does not, by itself, cause motion, as demonstrated by >>12529981

>>12530011
>In the absence of gravitation, these densities would coexist as masses without moving in any direction.
Are you telling me that without "gravity" density does not seek its equilibrium? Are you telling me that in an environment of 0G you can mix oil and water?

>>12530008
>Tell me how helium balloons and hot air balloons rise because of gravity?
The air below the balloon is pushing against the balloon to counter the force of gravity on the balloon and the air above it. This is called the buoyant force. The amount of bouyant force is equal to a mass of outside air of equal volume to the balloon. So if the balloon's air is less dense than the outside air, it will have less mass than that and the ubouyant force will be greater than the force of gravity on the balloon. So the net force on the balloon is upwards.

>>12530028
>Are you telling me that without "gravity" density does not seek its equilibrium?
Your question doesn't make sense. Equilibrium is when the net forces on all particles are zero. Density does not imply anything about forces at all. Objects of different densities arranged in any manner are already in equilibrium if gravity and other external forces are negligible.

Without gravity, objects just float around in space, conserving whatever momentum they have. Why is this hard for you to understand?

>Are you telling me that in an environment of 0G you can mix oil and water?
Correct:

http://www.our-space.org/materials/states-of-matter/liquids-in-space

>>12530041
>So if the balloon's air is less dense than the outside air, it will have less mass than that and the ubouyant force will be greater than the force of gravity on the balloon
Where does this upper thrust, "gravity" defying force that you call buoyancy come from? What causes it?

>>12530064
I don't see anyone mixing oil and water in those videos. Let's take it further, why do steel and air not mix in 0G?

>>12530079
It doesn't defy gravity at all. It exists solely because of gravity. Gravity is what makes the concept of density matter when it comes to this, as it is gravity pulling the more dense air beneath the balloon, forcing the warm, less dense air up and pulling the balloon with it.
Without gravity, density would not behave like this at all. The objects would shoot off in whatever direction they were propelled in, and density would only be meaningful as a measurement.
It is because of gravity that dense and less dense objects interact the way they do, not in defiance of it.
Remember that gravity is not an insurmountable, massive hand pushing everything down. It is a constant, stable acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 toward the Earth's center of mass. If anything accelerates upwards enough to cancel out or even counterract acceleration due to gravity, it rises. This is why birds, bees, and yes hot air balloons rise - they counteract the downward acceleration - they do not "defy gravity" - that is an expression, not a description of reality.

>>12530089
If I stand beneath an anvil and drop it, the anvil does not slip through me even though I am less dense than it. It will just crush me. Though if I and the anvil jump out of a plane, we will fall at the same rate despite being different densities. Weird.

>>12530109
>It doesn't defy gravity at all.
It clearly does because we're dealing with an upper thrust force that makes the balloon lift off from the ground. Tell me where this rising force in opposition of a falling force, originates from.
>>12530117
Denser objects reach the ground faster on earth. This is basic physics, anon. You can test this.

>>12530079
>Where does this upper thrust, "gravity" defying force that you call buoyancy come from?
It's from the electrons at the surfaces of the balloon and air resisting being pushed together.

>>12530146
Electrons, you say... How does heating up air make appear electrons on the surface of a balloon? How do those electrons pull the balloon up? Do electrons possess some sort of gravity opposing quality?

>>12530089
>I don't see anyone mixing oil and water in those videos.
He is mixing immiscible liquids of different densities. Why does it need to be oil specifically?

>Let's take it further, why do steel and air not mix in 0G?
They do. If you mix steel and oxygen in space they won't separate based on density.

>>12525562
>Apple falls to the ground because it's denser than air.
then why does apple not fall to the ground in zero gravity?

>>12530142
>hurr durr it defies gravity
No, it doesn't. Defying gravity would mean it works despute gravity, not because of it. Buoyancy only exists because of gravity. Without gravity, objects of different density would float around directionlessly. They would not separate, and they certainly wouldn't decide on a "down."
>"denser objects reach the ground faster"
If this were true, your head should tunnel through your shoulders.
Your retardation aside, why do objects fall in vacuum chambers? Shouldn't they float? And an anvil and a bowling ball will hit the ground at the same time despite being different desnities. These examples alone are direct refutations of your claim and proof it is your stupidity and arrogance making you cling to this belief that only density matters. Again, try refuting anything in >>12529981
It's telling that you can't.

>>12528856
i always love when the schizoids get BTFO’d by the autists

>>12530142

Specific gravity.

I heard you can die in space if you spend time there. You need adjustments. Blood don’t pump at the same level. Things need to sit. It’s amazing how gravity defines what’s up or down. Or how we are programmed to see things a certain way almost as if there is a computer correcting your balance of the universe. I guess being in space is like losing training wheels.

>>12530064
wow that’s cool i never realized that man the universe is so cool i fucking LOVE SCIENCE

>>12530166
He's not mixing anything. If gravity is responsible for density equilibrium then I should see a perfectly homogeneous solution between oil and water, steel and air in 0G environment. Doesn't really happen.

>>12530161
>How does heating up air make appear electrons on the surface of a balloon?
It doesn't. There are electrons at the surface of every atom already. Heating the air makes the balloon push on the outside air's electrons more, meaning the bouyant force increases. But since the mass of the balloon doesn't increase, the gravitational force remains the same. So Heating the air increases the net upward force.

>How do those electrons pull the balloon up?
They don't pull, they push.

>Do electrons possess some sort of gravity opposing quality?
Electrons repel each other when pushed together. They can't occupy the same space.

>>12528208
I never said they don't exist, I said there was no empirical evidence of them

>>12528806

>Great so you admit space is empirically studied every day.
Studied, but not empirically. That's why the only "proof" of space you can show me is a model

>rate of induction is a speed
You're a fucking moron, but because you believe in the descriptions given by GR you probably believe it.

>Every study related to GR.
No shit, the same theory proposing that it's curved in the first place. It's bent under it's own axiom.

>Thanks for again admitting time and space exist.
"Whenever, wherever refers to no specific place or time. It doesn't even tell you whether there's a beginning or end.

>Shadows clearly exist
I bet you believe it too

>I never assumed space has properties, it's empirically proven
>but only under GR

>3 dimensions of the manifold in which events lie
>space is a measurement
"yes"
>in which events lie
So it's a fishbowl? A womb? What is space?

>The scale factor is currently 1 and growing larger.
a medium?

>It has a metric expansion, which means it is getting less "dense" over time
So space is the aether?

>In other words, the distances between points of space are increasing.
How? What is causing that?

>Claiming you never got proof is a lie.
All you've done is given descriptions from GR and analogously compared the spacetime model to..."space", yet you haven't shown proof only claimed that the model itself is proof.

>>12530199
>He's not mixing anything.
Oh, so those liquids are separated according to their density? You lose.

>If gravity is responsible for density equilibrium then I should see a perfectly homogeneous solution between oil and water, steel and air in 0G environment.
Why?

>>12530218
Cats are studied but not empirically. The only proof of cats you can show me are models.

Every study that shows cats exist assumes cats exist. They assume cats exist before proving them. Therefore all studies showing cats are real are wrong.

Cats are only proven under biological models that assume cats exist.

All you've done is show studies that say cats exist, but you haven't shown proof of cats. You only have models of cats.

Definition games are fun for retards!

>>12528830
>Look at this buffoon believing atoms are "substantial." 99% of a "cat" is actually empty space.
....What is "space"? What is actually there in that 99%? Do you even know?

>Sure, you can tell me how long the "cat" is or how much the "cat" weighs, but can you really tell me what a cat is.
At the very least I can show you empirical evidence of it.

>You could only describe the cat, which, as you've stated, isn't meaningful.
I COULD do that, but since I actually *have something to study, I can test it and compare it to other things. Can you do the same with "space"?

>Therefore the cat is not real and any attempt to prove it is shows you've just bought into the stupid delusions of normies and pet store owners who make billions off the lie that are cats.
But you just said I can test it, measure it, and show you it. Just because I can't tell you what it is, I can prove *whatever it is* actually is there. That's the difference between "cat" and "Space".
One has substance to speak of, the other is pure privation


>>12528856
>measurements of space and time.
What properties are you measuring?

>Of space and time
intervals? What is space and time a music sheet now?

>Already told you.
Using GR you describe "Spacetime" not space.

>How do you know this real thing doesn't have properties?
That's what I'm asking, yeah. "Show me the properties". Until then I won't subscribe to it.

>How? You must have some logical or empirical argument.
Burden of proof. I have no burden in proving that which has never been shown to exist, exists. That is the job of the claimer.

>???
And slows down..cause it's an electromagnetic phenomena being capacitized by the medium it passes through. Glass is a capacitor.

>I don't see why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.
>I don't see why the absence of what causes the properties in the first place wouldn't cause properties to arise

>>12528856
>Why would the absence of light have no model?
Go ahead. Model an absence. Waste of time.

>Completely wrong. Gravity is much weaker than EM, is purely attractive, doesn't have charges, is quadrupolar rather than dipolar, is related to inertia, etc.

Which are all descriptions.

>baseless assumptions.
They go towards a null point, it's observed to be the case.

>When you see two cars moving towards each other do you think the point between them is pulling them?
Did you actually equate a car with a moving celestial body? I'm not entertaining this stupid analogy. Where's the gas pedal on a planet you stupid fuck? Is earth gonna do a wheelie on the moon next? Absurd.

>What is an inch?
A standardized measurement

>Doesn't satisfy the schizo.
It doesn't satisfy you does it? Having to come in here and hope I buy into you repeating your circular bullshit?

>What is?
yeah. "What is space". Can you tell me finally?

>Ordering events by time
By order. Not by time. A source is not time. A flowing river does not start at "time", you dumb shit. You great grandpappy is not father time. Just ordered.

>>12530235

>Cats are studied but not empirically.
>Veterinarians have now ceased to exist

>All you've done is show studies that say cats exist, but you haven't shown proof of cats
I can show you a cat, and there are tests I can perform on one..

>Definition games are fun for retards!
>He still believes I'm arguing over definitions

>>12530245

All I heard is cock in a vagina logic. When you have no space at all it feels like a bag. So you need a bigger and bigger vagina to even get satisfaction because the true joy of sex is taking out the wrinkles. Otherwise it’s like what’s the point in this. Get what I’m saying. All science convos have come down to sex and space. It’s more like they’ve become closed door politicians. And physicist say no I don’t want that country or this country to participate because there is no wiggle room.

>>12530278
There is not even 1 Maru when they were the first rocket scientists and engineers.

>>12530245
>what is space?
Not a cat, that's for sure.
>I have empirical evidence of cats.
No, you don't. There are pictures of things claimed to be cats, and people claim to measure and study cats, but those claims are only measuring particle interactions and claiming to prove cats. You can only do this if you axiomatically believe cats exist. If you see the world for what it really is, you'd know the truth.
>I actually have something to study
No you don't. You may claim to study the cat's dimensions, but that's not studying the cat itself. Its behavior? Also not the cat itself. All observations of the cat are of interrelated phenomena you choose to call a cat because of your sick, retarded dogma, but you can't actually study cat itself.
>I can prove it's there!
You can't. You point at a mess of particles interacting and claim you saw a cat, but you only do that because of the arrogant assumption that cats are real. You can't open your mind to new paradigms.

>>12530272
>veterinarians
Exist solely to profit from the lie that cats exist. They claim to study cats, but their claims are just made on measurements they attribute to cats.
>I can show you a cat and perform tests on one
No you can't. No one has ever actually seen a cat. They just claim to because they observe phenomena and then attribute them to cats.
>not arguing over definitions
Lol, so far it's solely about definitions and your inability to comprehend space and gravity as concepts.

>>12530184
>Defying gravity would mean it works despute gravity, not because of it. Buoyancy only exists because of gravity.
So objects like helium balloons rise **because** of a downward pulling force. That's a new one.
>Without gravity, objects of different density would float around directionlessly. They would not separate
What keeps weightless objects together? Shouldn't they fall apart?

>>12530278
freud?

>>12530218
>Studied, but not empirically.
Wrong.

>That's why the only "proof" of space you can show me is a model
Every empirical proof is a model. Get over it schizo.

>>rate of induction is a speed
Who are you quoting? Dumb schizo.

>No shit, the same theory proposing that it's curved in the first place.
Yes, the same theory that has been proven over and over again. Either provide a better theory or fuck off already and take your meds.

>"Whenever, wherever refers to no specific place or time. It doesn't even tell you whether there's a beginning or end.
Where did I say either? Learn how to read, dumb schizo.

>I bet you believe it too
So light is never absent?

>>but only under GR
>"Only" under a theory supported by massive amounts of evidence
You are incredibly retarded. It's not even only under GR.

>>space is a measurement
Wrong again, schizo.

>So it's a fishbowl? A womb?
You're literally schizophrenic.

>What is space?
I already told you. Read my posts again, schizo.

>a medium?
Use English.

>So space is the aether?
You're literally schizophrenic.

>How? What is causing that?
It's the effect of cosmic inflation, probably due to vacuum decay. When you take your meds you might have enough intelligence to learn about it.

>All you've done is given descriptions from GR
Why are you lying? What I've done is give you empirical evidence for GR, which means all your bullshit is out-of-date babble.

>quoting tesla
Opinion discarded.

>>12530351

All the scientific documentaries and debates seem as if they have turned into a war crime trial. I can understand. Rumor is the person who was going to be picked to run after Clinton started murdering people after they were disclosed an educational topic. So they started to purposely give themselves the quintessential characteristics of a disease to say “I got the disease but I really don’t. I’ve been to space and these are symptoms of hours on duty. It’s just a coverup to see if they would enlist them.” However it leaves modern stress open for debate as originating in untreated infections by the medical lobby. So they’ve been trying to play open secuestre in the north.

>>12525318
cringe edit

>>12530350
>objects rise because of a downward pulling force
Yes. Try reading the explanations that have been given to you. A helium balloon rises because denser air is pulled beneath it, and that denser air pushes on it. The balloon, assuming its materials are strong enough, will fall in a vacuum chamber, despite the fact it has no medium to rise into. Why does this happen? Can you explain why objects fall in vacuum chambers? So far you've refused to.
>what keeps weightless objects together
Electrostatic forces.
If you're correct and density is the only operating factorn how do compounds exist? Shouldn't the entire universe differentiate based on density? Thus the human body could not exist as it is made up of numerous substances of different densities that hold together.
Can you answer either of my questions?

>>12530245
>What properties are you measuring?
Distance.

>intervals?
Yes, intervals of space and time.

>What is space and time a music sheet now?
No one cares about your delusions, schizo.

>Using GR you describe "Spacetime" not space.
Space is part of spacetime.

>That's what I'm asking, yeah.
No, that's what you're claiming. I'm asking you why you are claiming that.

>"Show me the properties"
I did already.

>Burden of proof.
The burden of proof has been more than met by physicists. The burden of proof is now on you. You can't even refute the evidence I've given you let alone come up with evidence for your delusions.

>And slows down..cause it's an electromagnetic phenomena being capacitized by the medium it passes through.
You realize that making up words that only your schizo brain understands is not an explanation right? "Capacitized" is not a thing. Dumb schizo.

Light slows down in any medium it travels through regardless of the medium being a capacitor because the light is being absorbed and re-emitted by the medium in order to pass through it. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion in the first place, but your delusions need to be corrected either way.

>>I don't see why the absence of what causes the properties in the first place wouldn't cause properties to arise
Hint: Adding the word "properties" to every other word doesn't actually do anything. Explain why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.

>>12530201
>Heating the air makes the balloon push on the outside air's electrons more, meaning the bouyant force increases.
Rephrase this. You are not making coherent, logical sense here.

>>12530272
>Go ahead. Model an absence. Waste of time.
So you're not going to answer the question, got it. Another abandoned schizo argument.

>Which are all descriptions.
Yes, correct descriptions. What is your point?

>They go towards a null point, it's observed to be the case.
So are you actually going to respond to what I said or are you at the stage of your mania where you just shut down completely and spout random statements?

>Did you actually equate a car with a moving celestial body?
No. Learn how to read.

>I'm not entertaining this stupid analogy.
Your complete inability to argue against basic logic is very entertaining though.

>Where's the gas pedal on a planet you stupid fuck?
It's spacetime. When mass presses on it, it accelerates.

>A standardized measurement
Of what?

>circular bullshit?
Empirical evidence is not circular, your refusal to face it is.

>"What is space". Can you tell me finally?
I already did. Take your meds.

>By order.
Order on what?

>A source is not time. A flowing river does not start at "time", you dumb shit.
More gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said. What a surprise.

>>12530455
What don't you understand? More volume = more electrons trying to displace other electrons = more buoyant force.

>>12530434
Perfect vacuums do not exist on earth. They are low pressure chambers. In a hypothetical perfect vacuum, an object will expand because of the negative pressure. It's why the boiling point decreases in relation to negative pressure. Density seeking its equilibrium perfectly applies here.
Also, you are being illogical to attribute the cause of an upward force to a downward force. As if pulling something causes something else to be pushed. Schizo-tier.
>Electrostatic forces.
You made this up. This requires electric charges.
The human body is an organised, complex living structure that functions by chemical processes. We're not talking chemistry, we're talking physics. What concerns us is the inherent properties of physical objects.

>>12530470

Take these Purple Pills

>>12525318
>It's an assumption derived from no direct observation. This goes against the scientific method.
stopped reading
Newton deduced a law of gravity that would account for keplerian orbits, which were based on direct observation
kill yourself

>>12530528

So space is a void with no specific gravity or directional ground. Just give it a new ton.

>>12530536

The idea is simple. We count from 1-9 and there are 9 planets. Plus the sun and a half planet close to pluto. 0 and 10. What are the coincidences that the names for those same numbers are based on benign and malignant gravitational pulls if you were were to go there? Tree is Earth. It means all works of literature and languages are fairly new.

>>12530519
>no perfect vacuum chambers haha I win
You don't. If density is the sole operating factor, objects would fall in proportion tp their density and medium. In a near perfect vacuum, all objects fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, in line with the theory of gravitation, but not with this density hypothesis. If it was density, they should fall slowly as there is next to nothing to "equalize" with. Your point is false.
>it's illogical to attribute an upward force to a downward force
If I push a wedge between two things and hammer it, it will split them apart. By your logic, this is impossible because a downward force is causing a split in a lateral direction.
I and others have explained multiple times how this works. The fact you can't understand is proof of your complete schizo retardation.
>indiscriminate whining
I'll admit, I used the wrong term. It's "electromagnetic forces." But still, doesn't explain why the human body doesn't differentiate into its base components since density is what causes things to fall.
And again, why do objects accelerate when dropped? If it's density, they should have an absolute speed proportional to their medium and density. This is not the observed case, and you literally cannot create a mathematical model of this that reflects reality.
Admit itn you're just incapable of understanding basic physics so you cooked up your own version to feel smart and show up all those people who managed to get out of high school.

>>12530330
>Not a cat
>not not not
privation. Defined by everything that it is not. That is what you have proven "Space" is. That it is not...but not what it is.

>No, you don't.
Personally, I have 2.

>but those claims are only measuring particle interactions and claiming to prove cats.
Oh? You mean they measured properties the cat exhibits?

>No you don't. You may claim to study the cat's dimensions, but that's not studying the cat itself. Its behavior? Also not the cat itself. All observations of the cat are of interrelated phenomena you choose to call a cat because of your sick, retarded dogma, but you can't actually study cat itself.
Now you're just being a sophist.

>Exist solely to profit from the lie that cats exist. They claim to study cats, but their claims are just made on measurements they attribute to cats.
Except when they prove a cat exists by measuring what properties it has.

>They just claim to because they observe phenomena and then attribute them to cats.
What phenomena was observed that can be attributed to "Space". Is the phenomena that causes cats measurable? Is the phenomena that causes space measurable?

>yes we measured the interactions causing cat
>but we only measure the interactions causing everything else such as celestial bodies in space, but not space itself?

>inability to comprehend space and gravity as concepts.
If your gripe is that I won't recognize them as concepts then you're misinformed or ill-informed. That's all I recognize them as period, concepts. Now show me the real thing, stupid.

>>12530376
>Wrong.
So what is space? Still a "concept" being hashed out?

>Every empirical proof is a model.
LOL NO, IT'S "REAL". If I want to prove a cat exists I show you a fucking cat, not a pinata of a cat.

>Who are you quoting?
Correcting all the retards that believe light has a speed when it's an electromagnetic phenomena induced to exist by means of the interaction of a medium.
>Yes, the same theory that has been proven over and over again.
>We proved this shit with our own descriptions
Now lets see some empirical evidence of "Space". Put it in a container or isolate it best you can and show it to me.
>Either provide a better theory or fuck off already
It's already been done! Why you keep rolling back to archaic and long since disproved theories is beyond me.
>Where did I say either?
You imply that I'm implying time is implicated.
>So light is never absent?
Is it? Is that what "Space" was made of the whole time?
>You are incredibly retarded. It's not even only under GR.
Because if there's anything better than making a flawed theory, it's basing another theory on the foundation of said flawed theory.
>Wrong again
So what is it being measured?
>You're literally schizophrenic.
Well what is it? You're still failing to tell me what it is. You're telling me that all of the events in humanity lie on an arbitrary model? It's absurd. What is space?
>Use English.
"medium" is an English word
>You're literally schizophrenic
>literally
Why do you need to include that word? You've already called me that twice, I get that you mean it. So what is space?
>It's the effect of cosmic inflation
What is it inflating into? A furfags commission?
>Why are you lying? What I've done is give you empirical evidence for GR
>using spacetime:the model from GR
So tell me what space is.
>which means all your bullshit is out-of-date babble.
That's GR though.

>>12530608
>space space space
Not what we're talking about.
>I have two
You may have two entities that you have elected to call "cats," but you're just as deluded as people who thing the drop phenomenon is caused by gravity
>measured properties posessed by a cat
No, people measure properties and then attribute them to what they call a cat. I don't recognize it as a cat, and people who do have simply bought into the delusion. Can you show me a picture of cat-ness? Can you define cat-ness? No. You can only show me images of matter and shout "this is a cat" and describe things you claim to belong to cats, but like you say, it's only description, not definition.
>now you're just being a sophist
Now you're catching on. As they say, takes one to know one.
>proven cats
Again, they just ascribe properties to a cat. I can ascribe pdoperties to a unicorn, and those properties can be measured, but that doesn't suddenly make unicorns exist because unicorns don't exist, and I'm merely claiming the measurements prove a unicorn. People who claim to study cats have bought into the lie, this invalidating them. Again, show me a measurement of cat-ness.
Like physicists, vets just came up with the delusional idea of "cats" to make money by baffling the population. Once you do your own research and learn the truth you realize how stupid these people are, spending money on things like toys and medicine and scratching posts.
>spaaaace
Again, not what we're talking about.
>I only recognize these things as concepts.
Yes, and then you ignore, define away, or straight up handwave any proof of those things because you're either ignorant or stupid. So I'm doing the same thing, but with cats.

>>12530596
>density is the sole operating factor, objects would fall in proportion tp their density and medium
They do. Denser objects fall quicker to the ground than less dense objects on earth, in any environment. Look it up or test it. This is a simple fact.

>If I push a wedge between two things and hammer it, it will split them apart. By your logic, this is impossible because a downward force is causing a split in a lateral direction.
That's not a good analogy because we're talking about an absolutely constant force. Not about the effect of a singular action that results in a singular counter-reaction.
>I'll admit, I used the wrong term. It's "electromagnetic forces."
I assume you're referring to the forces on a molecular or atomic level which means you're pretty much affirming what I say because the density of an object is determined by its elemental properties.

>Admit itn you're just incapable of understanding basic physics so you cooked up your own version to feel smart
Am I reading this from the same guy who's telling me that gravity is responsible for the rising of hot air balloons and who doesn't that objects of greater comparative density hit the ground quicker from the same altitude.
You need introspection and self-reflection.

>>125304
>>12530442
>Distance.
Is that not a measurement?
>intervals of space and time.
Elaborate, it makes no sense
>No one cares about your delusions
And yet you're more apt to reply than a damage control team. If no one cared, why even mention it?
>Space is part of spacetime.
You just did it again! Using GR you describe spacetime, but not the actual "Space" in reality. I am not talking about how space is modeled. I want proof of "Space". Don't draw me a unicorn and call it a real unicorn.
>You can't even refute the evidence
You give no evidence, only analogies and models based on everything space is not. A model is not evidence, nor does it necessarily explain how what's being modeled actually functions. Like a model airplane, all the parts may look the same as the real thing, but it still isn't going to operate or fly the same nor does it show me the real one in action.
So show me "Space" as it is without the model. Can you even?
>You realize that making up words that only your schizo brain understands is not an explanation right? "Capacitized" is not a thing
Are you the "how" not "why" sperg? Well whatever, you "got" me. "Capacitated".
>Light slows down in any medium it travels through regardless of the medium being a capacitor because the light is being absorbed and re-emitted by the medium in order to pass through it.
Exactly. It's "capacitated". It undergoes a change that makes it necessary to pass through , which results in it "speeding" up or "slowing" down depending on the medium.
>regardless of the medium being a capacitor
All mediums are. All of them are insulators too. It's just to "what degree" and relative to what other medium type it's compared to.
>Explain why an absence of light couldn't cause something to occur.
It's what causes something to occur in the first place. No light, no anything. If the sun burned out today, produced no light whatsoever, what would it "be"? How would the solar system continue existing?

>>12530470
>So you're not going to answer the question
Because there is "not enough info"
>Another abandoned schizo argument.
>arguing over nothing
Don't do this
>Yes, correct descriptions
"Unicorns have horns" is a correct description that doesn't allude to anything useful in reality.
>So are you actually going to respond to what I said
I just did. Want to tell me why they go towards the null point?
>No
You did. You compared a vehicle controlled by a monkey on a rock with a rock that monkeys can't control. You're ridiculous.
>Your complete inability to argue against basic logic is very entertaining though.
You're dubious is what you are. You actually want an answer? "YES" they do accelerate towards each other. If you took both cars, left them there for billions of years until the earth was gone leaving nothing but these two fucking cars, then yes they would accelerate towards each other meeting at a null point in between. Care to explain why they do that? Oh wait let me guess "because Newtons description" right?
>It's spacetime.
Well shit, what gas station sells that additive? Would it work on a 2 stoke?
>Of what?
I dunno, measurements aren't actually something.
>Empirical evidence
models aren't empirical. They model the empirical
>Order on what?
depends where the source is
>More gibberish that has nothing to do with what I said. What a surprise.
Because time doesn't control anything, nor is something.

Gravity is a mathematical formula. It is capable of predicting the motion of objects precisely and accurately enough for most purposes.

The evidence that exists does not give support to the existence of gravity. The evidence gives support to the effectiveness of the mathematical formula.

Arguably, numbers themselves aren't even real. There's no empirical evidence for them, and yet you use them.

If your bank tells you you have 0 dollars in your bank account, you don't retort that there's no empirical evidence for numbers. You simply recognize you're broke.

Gravity is a bit like numbers in that sense. It's useful. It's usefulness is real. It's predictions are precise, accurate, and testable.

Again, that doesn't mean gravity is "real". It doesn't even matter if it's real. The predictions are what scientists care about.

If I have 3 apples, and I subtract 2 apples, I'll have 1 apple. That's not empirical evidence in support of the existence of numbers. That's empirical evidence that supports that numbers work.

Gravity is just like that. It just works. We can't test that it exists. We can test that it works.

Let this be the end of this thread.

>>12530677
>Not what we're talking about.
Not if you're OP I guess.
>You may have two entities that you have elected to call "cats," but you're just as deluded as people who thing the drop phenomenon is caused by gravity
The phenomena is called "gravity". Not caused by "gravity". Stop with this psychosis.

>No, people measure properties
Yes
and then attribute them to what they call a cat.
Yes
>I don't recognize it as a cat, and people who do have simply bought into the delusion.
"Okay schizo", but there's still "properties to be measured" as you clarified.
>Can you show me a picture of cat-ness? Can you define cat-ness? No. You can only show me images of matter and shout "this is a cat" and describe things you claim to belong to cats, but like you say, it's only description, not definition.
But you just said the properties were measured, so scientifically speaking it's real. Now just do the same with space!

>I can ascribe pdoperties to a unicorn,
yes, as you can yo any imaginary thing

and those properties can be measured
No, because you don't have a unicorn to measure. Because it's imaginary. Your "properties" in this case are imaginary.

>but that doesn't suddenly make unicorns exist because unicorns don't exist, and I'm merely claiming the measurements prove a unicorn.
Now replace the word "unicorn" with "Space".

>>12530801
>OP
Not OP, so doean't apply.
>gravity
I was just using an example. Stop getting hung up on that.
>there are still properties to be measured
Yes, but just like how downward acceleration of 9.8m/s^2, gravitational lensing, orbital dynamics, etc, etc, are attributed to gravity, people attribute properties to cats when in reality it has nothing to do with cats.
>properties can be measured
Yes, but again, they are falsely attributed to cats, because cats don't exist. If you hadn't bought into the delusion, you'd understand, but you're too arrogant to admit.
>do the same with space!
When people do, you dismiss them. Besides, we're talking about the hilarious falsehood of cats.
>you don't have a unicorn to measure
And you don't have a cat to measure. You have a collection of particles that you, deluded as you are, call a cat and then pretend you're measuring a cat. Just like those physicists. You're no different, just dumber because you literally bought two of these non-entities and still play pretend with them. How sad!
>spaaace
And replace "space" with "cat."

>>12530801
tripcodes are dogshit. Prove you aren't fanboy right now. What is hertzian technology?

>>12530667
>So what is space?
I already told you, schizo.

>LOL NO, IT'S "REAL".
Everything you say about reality is a model, schizo.

>Correcting all the retards that believe light has a speed
I already gave you a page about several different experiments showing it has a speed, schizo.

>induced to exist by means of the interaction of a medium.
This is gibberish, schizo.

>Now lets see some empirical evidence of "Space".
Already given, schizo.

>It's already been done!
No it hasn't, schizo.

>You imply that I'm implying time is implicated.
No I didn't, schizo.

>Is it?
It is, schizo.

>Is that what "Space" was made of the whole time?
No, schizo.

>Because if there's anything better than making a flawed theory
What is the flaw, schizo?

>So what is it being measured?
Space.

>Well what is it?
I already told you, schizo.

>You're telling me that all of the events in humanity lie on an arbitrary model?
No, they lie in spacetime, schizo.

>"medium" is an English word
"A medium?" is not English.

>Why do you need to include that word?
Because you're literally a schizo, schizo.

>What is it inflating into?
It's not, schizo.

>>12530793

Are there different kinds of gravity? Like love for example has 10 different words in Latin or Hebrew. In Spanish language there is no word for love the idea is that it is a duty.

You can’t predict that a zero gravity chamber on earth can even replicate space’s void. Do gasses exert a force? It’s a vacuum, it’s a void...There has to be something wrong if we keep seeing it having earths instead force to maintain biological function.

>>12525318
Hi /pol/