/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12553438
The Hagakure hypothesis admits a minimal number of bodies necessary to produce any supposed magical result. Assuming they have to eat, there are hard limits on the range of physical motions created by an invisible army. Setting aside any ecological strain, it's not a fully qualified explanation of magic.

Can you try presenting topics in a way that doesn't invoke ideas I had while watching My Hero Academia? There are some decent concepts I'd rather not sully with your rhetoric.

I'm slightly dismayed that someone went to the trouble of making this retarded image

>>12553751
>t. string theorist

>>12553751
This.

>>12553751
it's a cute picture of Cirno though

Fucking pseuds of course it's cirno.

I'm confused, I don't see anything for option 10?

>>12553438
Why aren't 2 and 10 reasonable explanations?

>>12555334
thanks babe, it's only my second time trying to draw a girl, i knew what problems were with it but i also knew i would mess it up if i tried to redo it here
>>12556796
>2
is it an explanation or is it a description? what compels two objects to unite after you declare them positive and negative or vice versa? we already know that the platform is attracted or bound to the auto somehow. saying one is positive and the other is negative is just labeling. coming up with an equation that says that negative and positive come together is description. math can never explain anything, it can only describe. it's the same if you label the auto "female" and the platform "male", or one as "blue" and the other as "red" like in quantum chromodynamics.
there is no such thing as action at a distance. interactions require a physical mediator.
>10
the problem with the hypothesis is the fact that the platform doesn't catch up to the auto, meaning that cirno is in fact not strongest
i guess "exist" would have been better than "become visible" (because existence is not predicated on faith). my mistake, it's not irrational at all, just a bit silly. it doesn't really follow to manifest a whole creature with thoughts and motivations and emotions just to explain an invisible push/pull phenomenon.
my other mistake was not making this hypothesis 9.

>>12556995
>explain how something works
>"but you didnt prove why it exists! science bfto"
fuck off back to philosophy department

>>12557137
where did i say that? my position is the exact opposite. there is no "prove" in rational science. an explanation doesn't need a proof.

>>12557213
but explanations that falter under scrutiny get discarded, and instead we are left with what works the best.

>>12557226
GR and QM do not explain jack shit, the main reason they are peddled is because they *describe* phenomenon to a very high degree of accuracy, but offer no explanation except for the schizophrenic reifications of their mathematics. that's why you can build technology and fly spaceships with non-explanations. you don't need to have an explanation of the invisible object of gravity to know exactly the path you need to take to get from A to B using the least fuel. GR and QM are the "what", rational science is the "why".

>>12553751
>>12553817
because you are npc

>>12557337
based

>>12556995
>what compels two objects to unite after you declare them positive and negative or vice versa?
>it's the same if you label the auto "female" and the platform "male", or one as "blue" and the other as "red" like in quantum chromodynamics.
what's the point in being this obtuse? obviously the two opposite charges attracted to each other is referencing some sort of magnetic connection. it is absolutely not the same thing as labelling them "male" and "female".

>>12557378
yes it is. positive and negative are just numbers that go into an equation (e.g. Maxwell's equations). their names and symbols are as arbitrary as the names and lengths of units of measurement, and the equations they go into serve no purpose but to describe with great accuracy the behavior of the objects in question. if you cannot explain exactly what it is about an object that makes it ""negative"" besides "it just is" or "the standard model predicts it", then your theory is not a theory.

a surface integral will never tell you the "why" of gravity, and a partial differential will never offer a possible invisible object between your fridge and the metal on the back of your family photo

is this about dark energy

>>12557403
no it's about Cirno

>>12557415
how is this supposed to debunk dark energy
i would rather trust einstein than some random loser on an anime imageboard

>>12557403
It’s about modern science in general.
>Hypothesis 2 is about electromagnetism
>Hypothesis 3 is about vector calculus
>Hypothesis 4 is about special relativity
>Hypothesis 6 is about string theory
>Hypothesis 7 is about Ads CFT correspondence
>Hypothesis 8 is about virtual particles and QFT
>Hypothesis 9 is about thermodynamics
Simple as

>>12557422
ackshually
>2 is about mathematical electrostatics
>3 is about mathematical magnetism
>4 is about general relativity (warped time = gravity)
>5 is about chakras
>6 is about vibrational consciousness or whatever it is when women and long haired faggot men talk about muh vibrations, also chakras i guess
>9 is about aether theories and casimir-style theories of gravity and electrostatics
>10 is about mi waifu

>>12557472
do not wife the fairy

>>12557482
shut up relativist i will do what i want, her pee is pure as spring water

>>12557287
I won't buy it unless your "why" is compatible with the "what". In any case, it sounds more like philosophy than physics.

>>12557213
op i really do wish i could hit you right now

>>12557531
t. offended that his AGGHHH IM PROOVING religion was critcized

>>12557520
that's the point of rational physics. if you "why" doesn't compatible with the "what" then it isn't even a "why", just schizophrenic rambling. how is it philosophy?
>see objects interacting by an invisible mechanism
>imagine and reason what the mechanism could possibly be
that's physics

what is the point of this image? Do you think we make irrational theories to explain phenomenon we don't understand like quantum mechanics? How do you judge what is 'rational' when its outside the context of every day life like a farmer carrying a hog trailer?

>>12557402
i don't understand your point op. are you just complaining that fundamental interactions are considered fundamental or what? maybe at some point we'll find some underlying subprocess that causes them, but then we're just gonna be moving further down the chain. it's probably gonna be a while until humans have a full and comprehensive understanding of all the rules of the universe, and I dont get why that should mean current science is somehow bad or wrong

>>12553438

>>12557
>appeal to authority
>trust
That is why you are an NPC hack

>>12557421
>>12557687

>>12557657
My thoughts exactly. This image seems to be made by some narcissist that lacks formal education.

>>12557378
you are dead wrong

RA the sun God, RAdiates and gRAvitates. This is a polar reality, everything is either male or female. Male energy radiates and female energy gravitates. All the ancients knew this, it is even incorporated right into the language (feminine and masculine nouns) and if you didnt get a slaves education funded by (((bankers))) to make you a good worker bee as opposed to someone who was actually given an education and understands the natural world; you would already know this too.

>>12557657
>Do you think we make irrational theories to explain phenomenon we don't understand like quantum mechanics?
quantum mechanics IS the irrational theory.
explain how a "probability cloud" pushes and pulls. QM+GR is the study of reifying concepts. and if you can't draw a picture of it, it isn't physics.
>>12557664
the issue is that QM+GR are just descriptions and don't explain anything. the processes proposed by QM+GR are irrational (negative momentum, bending time, etc.).
>>12557697
sorry bub, no matter how complex your math is, you can't explain anything in the natural world with it. your rank-5 8-dimensional tensor can measure the motion of the earth to 8432589633 decimal places but it will never offer a possible invisible object binding it to the sun
>>12557703
thanks for your input anon, i will put your schizophrenic gibberish in the next image i make ridiculing irrational pseudoscience

>>12557564
if the "why" is compatible with the "what" then it's just the search for a more metaphysically satisfying explanation of the physics, hence philosophy. Like searching for a better interpretation of QM, but maybe on a larger scope. Not trying to be dirisive btw. Just providing my point of view.

>>12557782
what's the issue?

>>12557790
none. you asked me how it was philosophy, so I tried to answer.

>>12557757
surprise! you were the psued all along drooling hylic!

>>12557812
im not vaccinated and won't be until the feds bust down my door and hold me down like in that dream i had last year

>>12557757
>the issue is that QM+GR are just descriptions and don't explain anything.
Give an example of an explanation that isn't a description.

>the processes proposed by QM+GR are irrational (negative momentum, bending time, etc.).
Why?

Basically, you just call anything you don't like or understand "not an explanation" or "irrational." You've got a lot of growing up to do.

>>12557757
>explain how a "probability cloud" pushes and pulls. QM+GR is the study of reifying concepts. and if you can't draw a picture of it, it isn't physics.
Explain how any object pulls or pushes? It comes down to electrostatic forces between atoms which are made of electron clouds and nuclei made of quarks and strong forces and other mysterious things. Something we can't really draw or describe fully yet.

>>12557839
>Give an example of an explanation that isn't a description.
ok
>observation: earth goes around the sun in a vacuum
>explanation: all atoms of the earth and sun are connected by a loop of invisible intangible vanishingly tiny rope
you don't have to agree with an explanation or think it's "true" (opinions, faith, belief etc. are not part of science), you just judge it by whether it explains or not, how well it explains, how it stacks up against alternative explanations, etc.
>Why?
QM+GR do nothing but reify concepts so that they can move and manipulate them as if they were objects. THAT is what irrationality is, reifying concepts. time is not an object that you can bend. love is not an object that you can bend. and if you can't see what's wrong with the idea of throwing a ball and recoiling in the direction of the throw (something that has never and will never be seen in nature) at just a glance then you probably never will
>you just call anything you don't like or understand "not an explanation" or "irrational."
how did you come to this conclusion?

>>12557851
>Explain how any object pulls or pushes?
by touch...

>>12557925
Okay, explain what touch is? When you deconstruct all these phenomena they are just as abstract as quantum mechanics

>>12558429
defining touch: no separation (distance)

>>12557687
Stop using the Appeal to Authority fallacy to justify listening to people who know literally NOTHING about this subject.

>>12558465
>only use the appeal to authority fallacy for authorities other than the one i appeal to!

>>12558437
So are you saying our current atomic model (where there is never no distance between things) is wrong?

>>12558665
??? draw a picture you incoherent stooge

>>12558676
No need for a picture- you said the definition of touch is when there is no distance between objects. But all objects are made of atoms. Atoms are 99% empty, consisting of an electron cloud and a nucleus. Atoms connect to each other by the electron clouds interacting, and with electrostatic attraction, which creates the materials we feel and see. But, those atoms don't "touch" each other, and there is always a distance between them. So, how can you say rational science is about 'touch', unless you're also calling the atomic model irrational?

>>12557925
>all atoms of the earth and sun are connected by a loop of invisible intangible vanishingly tiny rope
No, that's just a description. "intangible vanishingly tiny rope " is just an idea. Ideas can't connect things and aren't explanations.

>THAT is what irrationality is, reifying concepts.
How do you distinguish real things from concepts?

>time is not an object that you can bend.
I don't know what you mean by "object," but it can be bent.

>and if you can't see what's wrong with the idea of throwing a ball and recoiling in the direction of the throw
I don't know what you're trying to describe. What is recoiling? The ball? You mean you've never observed a ball coming back down to Earth?

>how did you come to this conclusion?
By noticing that you give zero justification for your pronouncements.

>>12558725
how can things push/pull on each other without touching?

>>12558780
What does "touching" have to do with it in the first place? You're just begging the question.

>>12558774
>No, that's just a description. "intangible vanishingly tiny rope " is just an idea. Ideas can't connect things and aren't explanations.
no, it's an object. a rope is an object, no matter how thin. that explains why the earth takes a curved path instead of a straight one

>How do you distinguish real things from concepts?
there are two classifications in rational science: objects and concepts.
object: something that has shape
concept: something that doesn't have shape
what is something that is real? what is something that exists:
exist: an object with location
only objects can exist. scientifically you do not say that verbs and relational nouns "exist" (e.g. swimming does not exist, time does not exist, love does not exist, distance does not exist, etc.)
you are free to compete with your own definitions.

>I don't know what you're trying to describe.
i'm talking about the voodoo magic quantum of an electron throwing a photon with negative momentum at a proton and this somehow explaining attraction, the electron recoils towards the photon it threw rather than away

>By noticing that you give zero justification for your pronouncements.
examples/definition of irrational science:
>using concepts as objects
>using descriptions as explanations
>explanations not following from assumptions
>using two or more definitions for one idea
>using zero definitions for an idea
>using unimaginable/unillustratable processes and mechanisms
QM+GR do all of these all the time.

>>12558814
i'm begging the question by saying that action at a distance is irrational and never happens? yes, the QM and rutherford atomic models are irrational non-explanations. rutherford was doing okay with his proton and electron balls orbiting each other, but he failed when it came to the invisible object between them and simply called his positive/negative labeling (description) an explanation
QM totally bombed though and transformed the balls into "waves of probability". reified mathematics.

>>12558909
>QM totally bombed though and transformed the balls into "waves of probability". reified mathematics.
But this explanation comes from experiments in trying to detect electrons, and seeing that they don't truly work as balls, but more like clouds

>>12558918
clouds of what?

>>12558918
>and seeing that they don't truly work as balls, but more like clouds
(According to the ontology of your preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics)

What OP is trying to say is that physicists are too quick to skip the part where they have to think about what the mathematics they produce means, and take the symbols as ontologically real, to the point that we have to doubt the reality of reality in order to upkeep not only some mathematical postulates, but their ontological interpretation as well from being invalidated.

>>12558780
>how can things push/pull on each other without touching?
Forces. We don't know "why" they work like that. It's a description we come up with from empirical observation. What else do you want? How else can we evaluate whether an explanation makes sense or not?

>>12558946
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense, but what is an example of us having to doubt the reality of reality as a result of theoretical physicist dogma?

>>12558946
also the fact that they use the cloud model to explain the structure of the atom when it's just sitting there, but the 0-dimensional NOTHING point (their idea of a particle) when explaining electrostatic interaction with feynman diagrams.

>>12558947
defend your position rationally. i am not sidestepping or moving the goalposts when i ask,
define "force".

>>12558969
Our definitions of forces are just descriptors of phenomena we observe. I never claimed to be able to explain 'why' forces work. I also don't know what position you think I hold that you want me to defend rationally.

My question to you is HOW do you do "rational science" ? You can say things only push and pull if they don't, but then a simple magnet will disprove that stance...

>>12558978
>You can say things only push and pull if they don't,
You can say things only push and pull if they touch****

>>12553438
Hi Bill.

>>12558983
can you imagine push/pull without touch? i mean REALLY imagine a slideshow of objects pushing and pulling on each other without touching?

>>12558978
that's the science part. explain the push/pull mechanism of magnets over separation with an object between.
a mechanism requires an object. all physics requires an object.

>>12558985
Hello Grant. I knew I would bump into you eventually. How is Alice?

>>12559006
>Hello Grant.
Ha, no, I'm not Grant. I just watch your channel occasionally.

>>12559031
Damn, I guess I am never going to find Alice or Grant.

>rational science
>return to prescience philosophy
No i don't think so.

>>12559165
QM is legitimately worse than forest spirits as science

>>12558954
By Bell's theorem, Quantum Mechanics is either nondeterministic, noncausal, nonrealistic, or nonlocal.
Deterministic means that a cause has a unique effect. Nondeterministic means that a cause may have different effects, and no possible concause may exist to explain the difference in outcome.
Causal means that every effect has a cause, and the cause happens before its effect. Noncausal means some effects are uncaused, or causes may come after their effect.
Realistic means that the quantities you measure are actual properties. Nonrealistic means that there is nothing to measure up until you measure it.
Local means that a cause may only have effect on things within its lightcone, so it's really just a way to say that it's ontologically compatible with Einsteinian relativity. Nonlocal means that it's ontologically incompatible with Einsteinian relativity.

Classical mechanics was deterministic, causal and realistic. Its purpose was to predict the future given a configuration of the present by extrapolating from the past.
Nondeterminism emerged from ignorance of causes (epistemic nondeterminism).
"Nonrealism" emerged as a consequence of the limits of our ability to probe the world around us (epistemological limitation).
Both of these are necessary for the scientific method to proceed, because you have to at least assume that the process may be productive as it proceeds. That is, upon failure of a current scientific theory, you have the following leads to follow:
From ignorance of the causes, you may think of the causing concauses, which you are allowed to since the discrepancy emerges from your ignorance of the world and limited ability of measuring it accurately.

>>12559190
Einsteinian relativity postulates that relative time and space, constructed with the Lorentz transformation, are "true space" and "true time" (ontological space and time), and that therefore there is no absolute space and time. Lorentz took relative space and time as epistemic, i.e. what is observed, not what is. This changes not its mathematics, only its interpretation.
By redefining "time", Einsteinian relativity also redefines causality: nonlocal implies noncausal, as faster-than-light effects would be observed before their cause in the local frame of reference, which is what exists and matters.

Since "we know" (postulate) that relativity is "true" in the Einsteinian interpretation of it, i.e. we require by postulate that reality be local, QM has to be either noncausal (which isn't even worth considering), nondeterministic or nonrealistic:
Either nondeterminism is fundamental, and no knowledge of all the causes may allow us to correctly predict the effect of a cause (ontological nondeterminism).
Or nonrealism is fundamental, and physical properties are undetermined until you observe it.
Both are scientific thought stoppers, as they leave you with open questions with no leads where to seek and explanation for, even vouching for themselves that these questions are in part fundamentally unanswerable.

So, we are left to doubt whether reality is indeterministically determined with no possible explanation, or whether reality is indetermined until observed, and what does that mean, which is a false dilemma stemming from dogmatic ontological reading of Einsteinian relativity.
All the pseudoscientific garbage about the holographic principle, string theory, and most (but not all) quantum garbage stem from trying to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics with the Einsteinian ontology, forcing more and more abstract mathematical entities onto the ontology of the real world.

>>12559190
>>12559192
b-b-b-b-b-but muh dark matter was PROOVEN

>>12559190
>>12559192
Ok, fair, thanks for your answers. It seems like there is little we can do to unite general relativity and quantum mechanics though, other than postulate layers and layers of theories.

>>12559031
What is this channel?

>>12559278
There it seems to be little we can do to unify GR and QM because of dogma, because of an extramathematical postulate, and the confirmation bias from being able to unify SR and QM into QFT (with virtual particles as a consequence) causing an inter-disciplinary circular argument:
>A:
>The Lorentz transformation models reality (whether epistemologically or ontologically).
>Einsteinian SR is its true ontological interpretation (Einstein's absolutely inviolable postulate that has no physical consequences but is the ultimate theoretical thought stopper).
>GR depends on SR.
>Therefore GR's ontology is SR's ontology.
>Therefore GR's ontology is Einstein's ontology (by postulate).

>B:
>QM models reality (whether epistemologically or ontologically).
>QFT is mathematically QM+SR.
>Therefore its ontology is SR's ontology.
>QM is classical iff Einsteinian SR is ontologically false.
>It cannot be (by postulate).
>Therefore QM is nonclassical.

>C:
>QFT is the most accurate mathematical theory we have for small scales.
>GR is the most accurate mathematical theory we have for large scales.
>They both contain SR.
>Therefore, they justify SR.
>Therefore, they justify the postulate (logical fallacy).
>Therefore, ontological problems stem from the interpretation of QM.

SR is ontologically true, because it mixes well with QM in QFT.
QM must be ontologically nonclassical, because it must mix well with SR in QFT.

The problem isn't to unify them, it's to unify them while keeping the ontological interpretation that theoretical physicists seek. Every question about the true meaning of quantum mechanics is a loaded question.

>>12558909
>no, it's an object.
Prove it.

>a rope is an object
A real rope is an object, what you described is just a concept.

>that explains why the earth takes a curved path instead of a straight one
No, it's just a description.

>object: something that has shape
Then spacetime is an object.

>concept: something that doesn't have shape
Since your concept of a rope is only a concept, it doesn't have a shape, so it's not an object.

>exist: an object with location
Since your concept of a rope is only a concept, it doesn't have a location, so it doesn't exist.

>you are free to compete with your own definitions.
I'll just use the actual definitions in English, thanks.

>i'm talking about the voodoo magic quantum of an electron throwing a photon with negative momentum at a proton and this somehow explaining attraction
Sounds like a much better explanation than your description. As predicted, your only standard for determining what is and isn't an explanation is just arbitrary definitions and what sounds good to you. This is no way to do physics.

>>using concepts as objects
>>using descriptions as explanations
That's what you did.

>>explanations not following from assumptions
The should follow from data and logic, not your arbitrary assumptions.

>>using two or more definitions for one idea
>>using zero definitions for an idea
Like what?

>>using unimaginable/unillustratable processes and mechanisms
Your inability to understand is your own problem.

>>12558909
>i'm begging the question by saying that action at a distance is irrational and never happens?
Yes. Action at a distance is observed everywhere and is precisely where atomistic and mechanical theories of physics fail. Not only are you begging the question by assuming touch is the default explanation of forces, you're espousing falsified physics.

>>12559278
>What is this channel?
Rational Science / bgaede.

>>12559369
i have never received a more obstinately stupid and desperate response to anything in my life before this post

>Prove it.
a rope is an object. a rope has shape.
>a real rope is an object, what you described is just a concept.
you don't know the difference between a concept and a nonexistent object. an object can have shape without existing. e.g. a fictional character.
>No, it's just a description.
a description would be something like "2 bodies, circular path, 100 km/s, etc." the proposed presence of the rope explains the loyalty of the earth to the sun. at this point you are just choosing to let this go over your head
>Then spacetime is an object.
fantastic, now use its shape to explain gravity.
>Since your concept of a rope is only a concept, it doesn't have a shape, so it's not an object.
a rope can never be a concept. a rope is an object no matter what. ropes have shapes and objects are those with shape.
>I'll just use the actual definitions in English, thanks.
NO! using nebulous everyday speech in precise practical disciplines is what got academia into this mess in the first place. DEFINE your terms, precisely and consistently, before using them in your explanations.
>The should follow from data and logic, not your arbitrary assumptions.
what data can be collected on the invisible and intangible...?
all hypotheses start with an assumption. the existence of your precious quarks is an unfalsifiable assumption. this fact is QFT 101.
>Like what?
"mass", "energy" = all undefined or loosely defined in physics and left alone as variables in equations
"orbital" = defined as both the path an electron particle takes around a nucleus as well as the actual electron as a cloud around the nucleus

>>12559434
>>12559369
>Your inability to understand is your own problem.
it's not about my personal ability to understand, it's if the scientist claims that he cannot illustrate his proposed mechanism because "it can't be visualized" or "it can't be imagined". e.g. "you cannot imagine the fourth dimension, but put that aside as i use it to explain my mechanism"
i can grasp a feynman diagram, 3p energy levels, spin, curved spacetime geodesics, etc. just fine, math is my strong suit, but that doesn't mean they aren't irrational explanations or non-explanations.
>>12559383
because you use the see/touch definition of an object and can't possibly conceive of something that you can neither see nor feel. a magnet's invisible extension isn't much of a jump from air's invisible (yet tangible) presence. go back to the webm of the balls >>12558780 and tell me how the right ball affects the left ball. if you use the word "force", define it.

>>12553438
Something must allow or disallow an object to exist in a location, something must afford existence itself. If between two points the object cannot have infinite positions, there must be a substrate, and therefore there is absolute motion and location, and therefore "relative to the universe itself" / space as container, becomes meaningful. The ropes, if they are not subject to this granularity, act in some way to create and facilitate it. Until I can put two objects in the same place I cannot reconcile this, and location must be something other than distance. Beyond this we run into the Munchhausen trilemma, which I have yet to find a way to break.

>>12559496
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>12559496
>Beyond this we run into the Munchhausen trilemma, which I have yet to find a way to break.
To clarify this applies particularly if there is no fixed absolute motion because it means the origin of logic must be circular (self defined, internally) if it isn't non-local (axiomatic, externally defined).

>>12559509
motion = changing distance
*really* not that hard

>>12559508
"space". If mechanisms are relevant, there must be a mechanism creating the mechanism. A means for that mechanism to function.

>>12559515
hmmm...
can you give an example?

>>12559329
I will have to mull over what you wrote a few times, but thanks for the answer.

>>12559512
This doesn't provide an explanation for the basis of "distance".

>>12559517
eg torsion and coalescing of ropes which are, conceivably, the fundamental object from which all others are formed. The issue becomes scale itself. Why should there be a macro and a micro, why should a rope be "here" and not "there" (why is it not in more than one place at once). Even if they just pass through each other until they reach a certain aggregate state, the issue of "granularity" remains. Where does the "logic" come from where the rope is not in one place, and where larger objects are not capable of all occupying the same region. If it doesn't stem from an "external" or somehowthus far fixed axiom, that behavior must stem from the rope;s interaction with itself. Meaning the rope is what creates both "something" and "nothing". Nothing cannot be absence of rope because rope itself is acting to allow for lack of rope. The only alternative I can think of is an "external" system generating "laws of physics" or some kind of space as container scenario.

>>12559434
>i have never received a more obstinately stupid and desperate response to anything in my life before this post
I'm sure it is quite disconcerting when an ugly narcissist looks in the mirror for the first time.

>a rope is an object.
A real rope is an object and has shape. The rope in your mind is not an object, it's just a concept and has no shape.

>the proposed presence of the rope explains
You keep saying this without explaining the difference between description and explanation. You can just admit it's the forever between explanations you don't like and explanations you do. OK? The "loyalty" of the Earth to the Sun is explained by GR, and this explanation has the advantage of actually being true and useful!

>you don't know the difference between a concept and a nonexistent object.
I'm just going by the definitions you made up. For example, you said that things which exist have location. So if I imagine something in a location, according to you whatever I imagine exists. Just like an imagined rope is "not a concept" because in my imagination it has a shape. Your argument is based on arbitrary semantic games that aren't even self-consistent.

>fantastic, now use its shape to explain gravity.
Mass and energy curve spacetime such that the paths objects travel on in spacetime are curved towards mass and energy. This explains why masses appear to be attracted to each other instead of traveling in straight lines at constant velocity.
>a rope can never be a concept. a rope is an object no matter what. ropes have shapes and objects are those with shape.
Right, just like anything I imagine in a location must exist. I imagine a killer is standing right behind you. Better watch out!

>>12559537
>that behavior must stem from the rope;s interaction with itself
(ie circular)

>>12559434
>using nebulous everyday speech in precise practical disciplines is what got academia into this mess in the first place.
>>12559537
>eg torsion and coalescing of ropes which are, conceivably, the fundamental object from which all others are formed.

>>12559692

>>12553438
this nigga smart like Yakub!

>>12559434
>NO! using nebulous everyday speech in precise practical disciplines is what got academia into this mess in the first place.
You're confusing your lack of understanding with ambiguity. This makes perfect sense considering your objection to physics are substanceless semantics.

>what data can be collected on the invisible and intangible...?
Luckily physicists are much smarter than you and figured it out.

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

>all hypotheses start with an assumption.
A hypothesis is nothing. Try talking about theories.

>the existence of your precious quarks is an unfalsifiable assumption.
Incorrect. Welcome to experimental physics.

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

>"mass", "energy" = all undefined or loosely defined in physics
How so?

>"orbital" = defined as both the path an electron particle takes around a nucleus as well as the actual electron as a cloud around the nucleus
The first definition is obsolete. You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>12559451
>it's not about my personal ability to understand
It definitely is.

>it's if the scientist claims that he cannot illustrate his proposed mechanism because "it can't be visualized" or "it can't be imagined". e.g. "you cannot imagine the fourth dimension, but put that aside as i use it to explain my mechanism"
Visualization and imagination of such things are a) subjective and b) irrelevant to what is real.

>i can grasp a feynman diagram, 3p energy levels, spin, curved spacetime geodesics, etc. just fine
Then what does visualization have to do with it???

>but that doesn't mean they aren't irrational explanations or non-explanations.
Your utter failure to explain why they aren't certainly doesn't help.

>>12559692
>>12559720
No, really. I don't get why you quoted me or what you're trying to say.

>>12559451
>because you use the see/touch definition of an object
No, I don't. And definitions don't make reality.

>can't possibly conceive of something that you can neither see nor feel
I can. Stop projecting your stupidity on others.

>tell me how the right ball affects the left ball
They both curve spacetime such that the geodesic each ball is travelling on in spacetime curves toward the other.