/sci/ - Science & Math

maybe he read early life on wikipedia

>>14479101
Unironically because he was a brainlet crank.

>>14479101
Same reason why Einstein didn't buy Quantum Mechanics right away. Science isn't a religion where you are an apostate for denying someone's hypothesis. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical and test theories before trying to build on them. He was more Engineer than scientist but even he understood how science works.

>>14479101
Because it's wrong. By the way, Einstein hated quantum mechanics because it's wrong, too, but he brought it upon himself by pushing a wrong theory first.
Now you're supposed to worship their every word, as if Science were a religion where you are an apostate for denying someone's hypothesis.

Isn't that a picture of Frank Zappa?

Just get off of 4chan and find out.

>>14479184
No one is worshipping them we tested these theories and they worked. GPS wouldn't work and satellites would be crashing into your house if we didn't account for relativity and Scanning tunneling microscopes literally rely on Quantum mechanical effects to image samples.

>>14479222
>GPS wouldn't work and satellites would be crashing into your house if we didn't account for relativity
Why do people keep regurgitating this pop-sci claim?

>>14479222
>if the equation of a scientist isn't a sufficient approximation of a phenomenon that phenomenon stops working

>>14479318
strawman
if the equation isnt a sufficient approximation its improved upon so that it gets better at approximating it.

>>14479247
the general populace will never part ways with their ignorant, uneducated einstein hero worship.
>you don't like einstein? you must be one of them low iq, anti-science nazis
thats why it makes no difference that observational evidence disproved relativity.
einstein is the substitute jewish god for jewish atheists, omniscient and above question. mentioning that observational evidence has disproved relativity on several occasion already is akin to blasphemy to the dedicated IFLSers

>>14479222
>we tested these theories and they worked.
If you say this, you don't understand what the problem is. The mathematics never changed, only the definition of space and time and conveniently some inobservables. You would still ""account for relativity"", but you wouldn't wet your panties over the "inferred fact" that "space curves" when the black science man on television says it.

>>14479320
relativity isn't a sufficient explanation of gravity, doesn't mean that satellites would crash into our houses.
>muh fallacy
your original post is a non-sequitur I only rewrote it lmao.

>>14479330
guilt by association
Just because pop-science sensationalizes something doesn't invalidate it.

> definition of space and time and conveniently some inobservables
Arguably they are the most observable of quantities. If you and a friend on the same latitude started walking north in a straight line you would meet at the north pole. You path was parallel yet you still met somewhere. Was that caused by some invisible universal force or the surface geometry?

>>14479333
>relativity isn't a sufficient explanation of gravity, doesn't mean that satellites would crash into our houses.
no one is making that claim and we are working to get a better one, thats the entire point of introducing dark matter and energy into picture.

If anything you're just attacking and trying to discard principles that work for the technology we currently have without offering a better alternative.

>>14479184
>Now you're supposed to worship their every word, as if Science were a religion
But in religion it works in precisely the opposite way. Clerics are not meant to be taken for their every word if those words are not in accordance with God's established law.

>>14479320
>lets keep on adding epicycles until our theory works
right, sounds elegant and simple. you know you're on the right track when you're constantly discovering flaws and inventing ad hoc patches for your pet theory.

>>14479345
>right, sounds elegant and simple.
never made the claim that it was and why does it need to be?
If the greeks didn't decline into obscurity because of the romans they would have kept adding epicycles, figured out fourier series 2000 years earlier without calculus and at some point figured out the trajectory is better defined in a co-ordinate system centered around the sun than the earth.

>you know you're on the right track when you're constantly discovering flaws and inventing ad hoc patches for your pet theory.

If you find out you're wrong, you correct yourself. Just because the media reports GR and QM as inalienable facts about our reality doesn't mean the academics who study this also believe this. Have you ever spoken to someone who studies GR or QM as a job?

>>14479342
>Just because pop-science sensationalizes something doesn't invalidate it.
If you repeat common misconceptions (even among physicists) that pop-science also repeats, then you repeated the same falsity.
Guilt by association is a fallacy, acquittal by dissociation is a fallacy also.

>Arguably they are the most observable of quantities.
Argue for it and be wrong. We can only know space and time through indirect measurements of lengths and periods, by comparing lengths to other lengths and periods to other periods. This led the absolutists (like Newton) to assert that space and time are 'absolute' but only a mathematical construct, and the (actual) relativists (like Leibniz) to assert that they don't exist at all, only the relations between lengths and periods.
To state that when we compare lengths together, we really do measure space, and when we compare periods, we measure time, is to prime yourself for confusion when your measuring rod expands due to heat, and suddenly the world around you seems to have scaled down in size.

This pointless philosophizing is not the point anyway. The matter of fact is that, at best, relativity and Lorentz ether were EQUIVALENT experimental theories, and we went with the theory that redefines the philosophical (not physical) notions of space and time (like redefining space when discovering thermal expansion, or redefining time when discovering that lower gravity on the moon causes a pendulum to swing slower), and at worst relativity has some problems explaining things like the Sagnac effect while staying internally consistent with its own philosophy. The mathematics of Minkowski spacetime describes both special relativity and Lorentz ether, their disagreement is in relating the calculations to real world phenomena.

>>14479343
>Clerics are not meant to be taken for their every word
Papal infallibility and the likes.
>inb4 catholics are not True Christians!
don't care, don't respond.

>>14479357
>If the greeks didn't decline into obscurity because of the romans they would have kept adding epicycles
Aristarchus conjectured heliocentrism a century before the Romans were even relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
Among the Romans, Pliny and Seneca ascribed to the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus.

Plato, Aristotle and the other Greeks rejected heliocentrism due to insufficient experimental evidence when put to test at the time (Ptolemy in particular violently rejected it), and went back to their cushy geocentric model and celestial spheres.
Thus they pushed back the acceptance of the heliocentric model for a thousand years after, leading to the mathematical hack of epicycles to save geocentrism, "because heliocentrism has been conclusively debunked by Ptolemy and the epicyclic theory of celestial spheres is the most accurate theory of celestial motion that man has ever created".

After the Copernican revolution, epicycles were still a more "accurate" model as far as calculations and it took some time for the heliocentric model to catch up quantitatively, even though it was recognized as the qualitatively superior theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

History is not a long march through obscurity and ignorance towards the genius of Einstein.

>>14479342
>If you and a friend on the same latitude started walking north in a straight line you would meet at the north pole. You path was parallel yet you still met somewhere. Was that caused by some invisible universal force or the surface geometry?
By the surface geometry, of course. You see, the Earth is actually just like a flat plane, but due the geometry of space, interesting and unexpected things happen, like two parallel lines eventually meeting. Other consequences of the curved geometry of space, that explains why two parallel lines eventually meet on the spaceplane, is that longitudinal space ITSELF contracts and expands as a function of altitude -- making it so that as you dig down the Earth, space contracts, and as you go up in the sky, space expands. This is how scientists explain how there can be so much room in the sky for the stars.
The theory also predicts that as you dig down the Earth, you should encounter a space singularity, where the space is 0 and therefore no motion can occur, and that if you were to somehow dig even deeper than that, you would find yourself in an antiworld, a world that is just like ours but upside down. If you were to dig straight down from here, you'd end up in anti-Australia, were up is down and down is up, and, incredible to say, space contracts and expands as an inverse function depth!

Of course this is retarded, because we know that
>Was that caused by some invisible universal force
IS the right cause (you are pushed onto the surface of the sphere by gravity, an 'invisible universal force', you idiot), and that
>the surface geometry
is a consequence of it.

>>14479357
>someone who studies GR or QM as a job?
thats not a job. work produces something tangible and measurable. wasting energy is not work. these newtonian mechanics definitions are very basic, you should have learned them in jr high school. people who get paid for doing nothing don't have jobs, they have scams.
somehow or other when einstein "discovered" newton was inaccurate, he didn't just add an epicycle. instead he scrapped the whole thing, invented new concepts and named them all after himself. however when einstein's idea are discovered inaccurate then they just get adjusted as if nothing had happened. the people who invented 95% of the universe being dark matter to protect relativity from criticism aren't even given partial credit for relativity, its still all einstein.
its almost as if there is an einstein personality cult that calls itself "science" for the perverse reason that identifying themselves honestly would negate all their arguments.

>>14479448
>space contracts and expands as a *function of depth

>>14479394
>If you repeat common misconceptions (even among physicists) that pop-science also repeats, then you repeated the same falsity.

Lets say a scientist erroneously claimed its okay to huff ethyl lead
People go around doing that and getting lead poisoning
Some other scientist figures out its wrong, tells them that they are poisoning themselves
People ignore him and keep huffing lead any way and blame both of the scientists for poisoning them.

Are both of them in the wrong or the one that originally told them to huff lead? Do the people bear any personal responsibility for continuing to huff lead even after being advised to not do so?

> We can only know space and time through indirect measurements of lengths and periods
We also know how capacitors and inductors work by indirectly measuring their impedance and finding how it varies with frequency. Just because the measurement methods are indirect doesn't make them cease to exist or function.

>To state that when we compare lengths together, we really do measure space, and when we compare periods, we measure time, is to prime yourself for confusion when your measuring rod expands due to heat, and suddenly the world around you seems to have scaled down in size.
Strawmanning again, no one is measuring distances directly and calling them measurements of space. Detemining the shape of an object would be closer to that.

>This pointless philosophizing is not the point anyway. The matter of fact..
>bringing Philosophy into an argument about whether hypotheses satisfy measurements
Even if Relativity deviates from reality at some point(i.e. is wrong, by your binary definition) we will still end up continuing to use it to describe things within the scope it works, the same way we still use classical mechanics in Civil and Mechanical Engineering and Most of EEE. The better theory will end up being used for things beyond it 's scope much like how Nuclear Engineering relies on Relativistic QM.

People on /sci/ have never read a science book in their lives yet they believe in quantum magick.

>>14479101
Because he knew it was wrong

>>14479430
>Aristarchus conjectured heliocentrism a century before the Romans were even relevant.
key word being conjectured
>Plato, Aristotle and the other Greeks rejected heliocentrism due to insufficient experimental evidence when put to test at the time (Ptolemy in particular violently rejected it), and went back to their cushy geocentric model and celestial spheres.
does that prevent someone from using epycycles through fourier series to describe retrograde motion and realising the trajectory is an ellipse centered about a point in the sun at a later date?
>After the Copernican revolution, epicycles were still a more "accurate" model as far as calculations and it took some time for the heliocentric model to catch up quantitatively, even though it was recognized as the qualitatively superior theory.
Have you come up with the mathematically sound basis for your qualitatively superior counterparts to GR and QM?
>>14479448
chicken or the egg?

>>14479488
>muh "just a useful model" cope
It's not just a model. It asserts ideas that are entirely wrong. It asserts that photons are massless, that mass and energy are interchangeable, that there's no aether or absolute reference frame, and it posits and incorrect mechanism for the transfer of gravitational force.

When relativity is finally confined to the dustbin of history, no one will remember it except to mock all of the people who fell for it.

>>14479449

>>14479533
>>muh "just a useful model" cope
Something that I literally didn't say. At the start of every single course. The first lecture, our professor would teach us what the scope of the theory is,what it can and can't do. Every theory has a scope within which it works. Classical mechanics works as long as velocities are much smaller than the speed of light in Vacuum and if the body in question is large enough, The same goes for Classical Thermodynamics and Classical Electrodynamics. GR works within small enough spaces where expansion isn't significant. The next theory will also have some point where it breaks. You are shoving the actions of People in Mainstream Media and those that consume it on people who didn't commit them.

>>14479543
>Classical mechanics works as long as velocities are much smaller than the speed of light in Vacuum
Wrong. It works at all scales and speeds.
>The same goes for Classical Thermodynamics and Classical Electrodynamics.
Wrong.
>GR works within small enough spaces where expansion isn't significant.
Wrong. It is incorrect at all scales.
>The next theory will also have some point where it breaks.
No. There is no next theory. Classical mechanics was always correct.

>>14479559
Show me the math

>>14479561
Here you go: F=ma

>>14479573
bzzzt wrong
F=dP/dt

>>14479533
>It asserts that photons are massless, that mass and energy are interchangeable, that there's no aether or absolute reference frame, and it posits and incorrect mechanism for the transfer of gravitational force.
If you think any of those things you're objectively wrong.

>>14479590
*are wrong

>>14479590
define "mass"

>>14479592
>you're objectively are wrong
ummmm...

>>14479606
A measure of a bodies resistance to change its motion.

>>14479610
if you bump into someone running, you survive
if you get hit by a train going at the same velocity, your guts get scattered for miles
are you sure its measuring resistance?

>>14479522
>key word being conjectured
>does that prevent someone from using epycycles [blabla]
You missed the point.

>Have you come up with the mathematically sound basis for your qualitatively superior counterparts to GR and QM?
There have been many such developments. See Madelung's hydrodynamic equations for QM, see Dirac's characterization of the vector potential as a fluid velocity field (like Maxwell), see Nelson's stochastic mechanics where he derives Schroedinger's equation from Brownian motion in an ideal fluid, see the Aharonov-Bohm effect, which would've been a simple prediction for an ideal fluid theory, and see the optical-mechanical analog models of general relativity.
Developments in the hydrodynamic analogy of electrodynamics has been used effectively since the 90's to engineer metamaterials.
Imagine if the view that there's an ideal fluid that we can engineer were the mainstream one, how effectively we would develop new theory.
What has the relativistic view given us? "The GPS, which is also explained by ether theory, and uhh... anyway, just pay billions for my latest hadron collider, ok?"

>chicken or the egg?
Sophism because you have been cornered. Ignore the fact that when you said the Earth curves, there is effectively something that curves, so by your own analogy, there is something that curves that "creates" the effect of "spacetime", which is part of what I meant by
>at worst relativity has some problems explaining things [...] while staying internally consistent with its own philosophy.

>>14479619
Yes. You're referring to momentum and momentum change.

>>14479624
why are your guts experiencing motion with the more massive object? Isn't mass supposed to ((RESIST)) motion?

>>14479628
Yeah. But not indefinitely.

>>14479628
Also it revisits a change to its motion.

>>14479247
Why do you think it's wrong?

>>14479488
Let's make your analogy accurate to how things are right now.

Let's say doctors erroneously thought it's ok not to wash their hands before operating.
Doctors themselves go around operating without their hands washed.
Science communicators tell the laymen through the telly that they don't have to wash their hands and people believe it.
Some other doctor figures out it's wrong, tells them that they are killing people by not washing their hands.
The doctors don't accept it, reject his claim and mock him for it.

Are the doctors expiated from the blame, because the people learnt about not washing their hands from science communicators in the television?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
>Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.


Scientists are people too, and they have plenty of unfounded superstitions that they think have scientific basis. One of them is spacetime.

>>14479630
>>14479634
Okay, so despite having more mass, the train magically has the ability to be in motion and some to spare to impart unto you. Makes total sense.

>>14479196
Yes

>>14479639
>Makes total sense.
Yes. A train is very hard to stop from going 80mph to 0. A 90kg man isn't going to stop it clearly. This is might be the strangest conversation I've ever had.

>>14479638
>One of them is spacetime.
If GR is wrong Vectors add the same way as always in all frames of reference. Get on a train, measure the wavelength and frequency of light coming off of bulbs on it, measure the speed and compare to the speed of light in vacuum. If CM is right, it should be the speed + the speed of the train for light going to the back, speed-the speed of the train for light going to the front.

>>14479648
Lol, no.

>>14479533
>When relativity is finally confined to the dustbin of history, no one will remember it except to mock all of the people who fell for it.
Reminds me of this.
>if only you knew how bad things really are

>>14479648
Now do the same with sound and when you get the exact same result as light, tell me with a straight face that there's an acoustic spacetime and that supersonic jet fighters travel backwards in time when they break the sound barrier.
https://journalofscience.org/index.php/GJSFR/article/view/2522/2383

>>14479652
You are retarded

>>14479643
A circuit with a 24 batteries and a 6 ohm resistor when connected has a current of 4 amps
replace the resistor with 12 ohms and you get 2 amps

A bullet with a mass of 10 grams going at 1000 meters a second has a momentum of 10Ns couldn't dent a cm thick plate of steel,
Replace it with a 25g shotgun shell and you get 25NS going at the same speed and you can see clearly through the hole in the plate....

Is this really a measure of resistance to motion?

>>14479663
>A circuit with a 24 batteries and a 6 ohm resistor when connected has a current of 4 amps
>replace the resistor with 12 ohms and you get 2 amps
Non sequitur

>A bullet with a mass of 10 grams going at 1000 meters a second has a momentum of 10Ns couldn't dent a cm thick plate of steel,
Replace it with a 25g shotgun shell and you get 25NS going at the same speed and you can see clearly through the hole in the plate..
I have literally no idea what you're trying to prove here. A more massive projectile is harder to stop perhaps? But then we agree, so I don't know what your doing.

>measure of resistance to motion?
To change its motion. To change. Ie, a more massive object is harder to get going and harder to stop.

>>14479670
>Non sequitur
>Resistance:measure of resistance to current(measurable quantity)
>Mass:measure of resistance to ((MOTION))

>>14479676
Another non sequitur. Are you having a stroke?

>>14479648
You ignore everything you don't like and latch onto things that are resolved by the very arguments that you ignore.

>>14479105
kek fpbp

>>14479679
okay so
>resists current
6 ohms to 12, 4 amps to 2
>resists "motion"
10grams to 25, 10Ns to 25
Why is something that is supposed to resist something causing it to go up?
>>14479682
>You ignore everything you don't like and latch onto things that are resolved by the very arguments that you ignore.
What did you resolve again? You didn't show me any math, just threw around a bunch of names that you likely can't even do the math or
get data for. Your fixated on the idea that academia worships Einstein when they clearly don't and everyone agrees that Relativity is incomplete, which is why they are trying to fix it. You're strawmanning with your analogy about science. You have a binary definition of right and wrong and your trying to fit anything you find into it regardless of whether it fits or not. All our theories are not completely correct, they're not completely wrong either, they are incomplete and work within a scope, and we are working to increase that.

>>14479702
>You didn't show me any math, just threw around a bunch of names that you likely can't even do the math or get data for.
>meanwhile "muh GPS myth" is an undefeatable argument

>everyone agrees that Relativity is incomplete
Everyone agrees that they want to extend relativity, not replace it. Everyone agrees that epicycles need new epicycles, not that we should admit that the Earth is not at the center of the solar system.

>>14479702
>10Ns to 25
That's momentum: mv, double the mass, double the momentum. If you want a heavier mass to have the same velocity (after the same acceleration) then you'll need to apply a larger force. This is trivially seen in guns, where the grains in 9mm is less than the grains in a 12 gauge.

>>14479622
>Sophism because you have been cornered. Ignore the fact that when you said the Earth curves, there is effectively something that curves, so by your own analogy, there is something that curves that "creates" the effect of "spacetime", which is part of what I meant by
no you are engaging in confirmational bias.
When presented with the choice between forces shaping an object and an object's shape creating the illusion of force you are refusing to disect both posibilities and considering the one that conforms to your narrative.

>>14479715
>no you are engaging in confirmational bias.
>When presented with the choice between forces shaping an object and an object's shape creating the illusion of force you are refusing to disect both posibilities and considering the one that conforms to your narrative.
An object's shape cannot create the illusion of force, there are no mechanics for it without forces maintaing the shape. You're doing metaphysics, not physics. Thank you for confirming yet again that relativity is not physics, but bullshit metaphysical claims.

>>14479724
>relativity is not physics
But it makes so predictive.

>>14479728
>But it makes so predictive.
Same predictions as another theory that has none of the metaphysical complications, therefore the simpler theory (without a material cause for its claims) should be preferred: there is an ether.
There is no difference between spacetime and the hand of God. Both are convenient metaphysical thought-enders to account for otherwise unexplained phenomena.

>>14479733
Aether predicts the Shapiro time delay? I'll believe it when I see it.

>>14479739
This is why I said that you simply ignore things you don't like, and complain about things that are explained by what you ignore.
There are Newtonian analogical models of general relativity like the optical-mechanical model, in which "curvature of space time" is simply refraction.
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1007/bf02105085
Some autist actually went the extra mile and extended Lorentz ether to match general relativity, matching GR's metric tensor to the aether's pressure tensor.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035
That light bends and slows down due to aether density/pressure is literally nothing new. Einstein's relativity made everyone forget.

Einstein's starting point for general relativity was a variable speed of light due to gravity in the first place, until he figured that he could geometrize the concept and keep the speed of light "constant", the same trick he used in special relativity.
v = ds/dt, so if v changes, but you are given the option to scale time and space as you please, you can keep v "constant" by mapping the change onto space and time.

>>14479754
>https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035
That's actually really interesting, ill read that on my commute home. Ty anon.

>>14479763
Glad you could find something of interest.
I assure you that the world of classical models of relativity and quantum mechanics is full of interesting concepts. Granted, it's also full of shit, so there's a lot of digging and sifting to be done.

>>14479710
Momentum, the quantity of motion, goes up when the mass goes up. If Mass supposedly resists motion, should it go up or down?

>>14479724
>an objects shape can't create an illusory force...b..because it can't
argument from incredulity
When two objects on a non-euclidean space move in parallel lines, they are bound to meet. This from the perspective of the objects is an illusion of an attractive force. Unless you had some way of freeing yourself from that non-euclidean reference frame and observing the two objects from outside it, you would think a force was attracting them while they moved.
>>14479733
>There is no difference between spacetime and the hand of God.
>t. has never studied basic co-ordinate geometry, let alone differential geometry
reference frames introduce acceleration if they are non-euclidean, its literally baked into the calculus

>>14479789
>>an objects shape can't create an illusory force...b..because it can't
>argument from incredulity
>uncaused cause
Hand of God. The main proposition of physics is to inquire into the internal causes of things. If you reject their existence, you reject the raison d'etre of physics altogether. Then what you do is not physics, but metaphysics. Physicists must stubbornly steal ground from the metaphysicists, lest they are engorged by them. Currently, we are seeing the latter case.

>t. has never studied basic co-ordinate geometry, let alone differential geometry
>reference frames introduce acceleration if they are non-euclidean, its literally baked into the calculus
I can draw lines on a piece of transparent paper, look at a scenario through it, and I can modify the lines as I please. My description will change, the world will not. You mistake mathematical models (and not only that, but a specific reading of their calculation) for reality.

>>14479754
>Let me just replace the name of a thing with a thing I believe in so I can still be correct and stroke my ego
I'm not convinced you even studied physics beyond high school let alone understand the mathematics you just regurgitated off of the abstract. I'll give these a read regardless. You could have saved us both lots of time if you just linked these at the start.

>>14479779
>Mass supposedly resists motion
Resist a change in motion. A change in motion. So it harder to slow a more massive object down or cause it to accelerate

Relativity is a beggar in king's clothes. Trying to be something else than classical, yes its just the cope gamma-factor mess everywhere. Its just simple aim-in-advance.

>>14479810
Two objects have the same acceleration but one has twice the mass. Why does the one with twice the mass experience twice the force if mass is supposed to resist it?

>>14479809
>Let me just replace the name of a thing with a thing I believe in so I can still be correct and stroke my ego
That's what happened with special relativity, yes. Or are you gonna tell me Einstein invented the Lorentz contraction?

>>14479818
Mass doesn't resist force, it resist a change in motion. Why does the the body with twice the mass experience twice the force? Because that's the force you've imparted to it.

Heres your gamma cope factor bro.

It seems its just the factor lenght that light must travel further to meet a particle in motion

>>14479845
Force is the rate of change of momentum, i e. motion. If mass resists change in "motion" it should be inversely proportional, or at least contravariant with respect to force but it's not.

>>14479854
Delete the post and repost after clearing metadata and changing the filename.

>>14479820
Umm no....

Space, i.e.the Co-ordinate system being distorted by transformation was already a thing in Differential Geometry which was well established long before Einstein was born. Einstein just showed that the source of gravity was this happening due to energy-momentum. If you wanna slap the ether label on it again to reconfirm that you are a very smart person you have already reached "pronouns in the bio" levels of delusion.

Btw if ether exists then EM waves and Gravitational waves can propagate through it in the form of longitudinal waves like sound. Maxwell demonstrating that this is not possible is literally why we abandoned the existence of ether as a hypotheses.

>>14480103
I'm not talking about mathematical description.
Symbols on paper don't make apples fall from trees. They fell when F = GmM/r^2, then fall now that G_μν = R_μν - g_μνR/2, and they'll keep falling when you'll accept that g is related to ϱ and p.

I know GR describes the phenomenon of gravity with the mathematics of differential geometry. It's not that hard to understand, you know?
The thing about mathematics, is that it's applicable to many different situations. Because of its generality, it cannot discern specifics. Mathematics can't tell you what causes mathematics.

We could've been fine with describing heat as a fluid. Imagine if we had a fully developed theory of vector fields back then. We would've never gotten rid of caloric, no kinetic theory of energy.
>>14479653

ITT I gave an example of why geometric descriptions don't mean shit. They don't explain shit. They don't give physicists a way to move forward. They're dead-ends, self-serving descriptions.
>>14479448

>Btw if ether exists then EM waves and Gravitational waves can propagate through it in the form of longitudinal waves like sound
Apply the same reasoning to sound.
We've never tried to replicate the Michelson-Morley experiment in air. Feist did and got the same result: isotropic two way speed of sound. Acoustic spacetime? The math works out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7511
I guess I didn't get the memo, supersonic aircrafts are time machines now, the symbols on paper say so. I mean, they do save a lot of time.
We've also never tried to replicate Young's experiment of light polarization in sound, a known longitudinal wave. It was Young's working hypothesis that it was due to the transversity of light waves, and called the phenomenon polarization, because of the assumption that longitudinal waves could not sustain the effect.
This 1881 paper finds an effect of polarization of sound in air: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.os-2.46.224
Physics is about experiments.

>>14479559
Most retarded post in this thread, congrats

>>14480382
>taking a shitpost seriously
I'm the guy he was replying to btw

>>14479561
>Show me the math

https://player.odycdn.com/api/v4/streams/free/The-Hermetic-Governing-Dynamic-Spinning-Polarity/4176f1a9aee310af4b4df28b049981cff1bf2cb3/aad3da

pwned

>>14479222
>muh GPS
Retard, you are no different than the people that denied QM because
>Newton's mechanics give us the right speed of a falling apple so they must be the final ultimate truth!
Newton was smart as fuck by the way. Einstein was mediocre.
>>14479329
I agree with you that Einsteinian relativity is pseudoscientific faggotry, but what specific observational evidence are you referring to? I want to learn more about it.

>>14479636
Because it was never right.

>>14479247
The heard it in school a lot so they just take it for granted.

>>14479222
>GPS wouldn't work and satellites would be crashing into your house if we didn't account for relativity
Elaborate, because no GPS system accounts for anything said by Einstein (and those that haven't elaborated on how their systems work is because it's classified).

>Scanning tunneling microscopes literally rely on Quantum mechanical effects to image samples.
They rely on electricity lol.

>>14480423
Don't argue with him, just tell him he's wrong and move on.

>>14480103
"waves" of any sort are absolutely irreconcilable without consideration of a medium.

>Maxwell demonstrating that this is not possible is literally why we abandoned the existence of ether as a hypotheses.
They abandoned ONE theory of the ether with a null result. This proves nothing, this disproves nothing. But somehow was the basis for an "explanation" in the form of Einsteins false reification of Space and Time.

>>14480441
>Don't argue with him, just tell him he's wrong and move on.
Imagine saying this after argueing with the exact same anon
>I get to argue with him, but you shouldn't!
why?

>>14480448
>Imagine saying this after argueing with the exact same anon
>arguing
No where did I argue. I asked for elaborations at best.

>why?
He presented no argument, why are you trying to argue over *no argument*? I'm not. I'm just telling him he's wrong and why.

>>14480462
>I'm just telling him he's wrong and why.
That is what other post was doing too.

>>14480462
>>14480448
you need to realize they are retarded and will never understand it. They only understand what they are trained like monkeys to understand, but it is more like to repeat not understand. They have never read a book that wasnt required for some class in a system designed to deceive them. They werent smart enough to see sheeeit just didnt add up and look somewhere else for the answer. The truth they dont even care about the answer because it doesnt help them consume. The person who decieves them most is themselves and that is just he way they like it. Reality is too tough for most people living a delusion is the norm and people dont like you disturbing their delusions. Just watch the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial and see what happens when you disturb people's delusions.

>>14479101
Cause he was a schizo

>>14480474
Not really, it never says why it was never actually right in the first place. It just compares Einstein to...the people who bought into his psychosis. That's not an argument, that's as "accurate" of a descriptions as relativity.

>>14480479
>you need to realize they are retarded and will never understand it.
But why not make other people realize it with me?

>>14480489
So being a schizo is a good thing because it lets you easliy see past the modern delusions then?

>>14480492
it is like asking someone with face blindness "why cant I make them see x person is here with me"

They simply can't. They were not designed too, in fact they were specifically designed not too as it is the kali yuga. It is like gene editing people to make them dumber, that is what kali yuga is

>>14480423
I literally never said its the absolute truth, you're also strawmanning. It works within the scope of spaces that are about 1ly in radius where you can consider expansion of space to be negligible. Satellites fall within that scope and if you don't account for faster time due to reduced gravity, you will have satellites crashing into eachother and falling out of orbit.
>>14480418
>our solar system has two suns
stopped watching right there
take your schizo theory elsewhere pajeet
(nice music btw can I get sauce?)
>>14480441
GPS receivers calculate location based on the time at which it received signals from GPS satellites, which are usually 20,000 kms or more away from the earth and have faster time. If they don't account for time dilation you accumulate a lag of
2*(24*3600)*(1-1/(1-2*G*Me)/rc^2)^1/2=38 microseconds a day. That would cause navigational errors of (c*3.8*10^-5)=11.3 kms.

>They abandoned ONE theory of the ether with a null result
They abandoned ONE theory of relativity with a null result.

>>14480508
>reeeeeeeee
case in point, they are retarded, it is all they can muster and they cannot produce anymore than this

>>14480501
How did you come upon your revelations?

>>14479696
Not sure how I missed that meme.

>>14480508
>faster time due to reduced gravity
Faster speed of light due to reduced gravity*

>>14480510
You're making a claim that can be falsified with the naked eye. On top of that your theory that antimatter is aphysical is horseshit, we have made anti matter and measured its mass, which is also positive, electrons are literally antipositrons. Matter and Antimatter only differ in charge everything is the same, a gram of anti-hydrogen and a gram of hydrogen would weigh the exact same, a gram. They would have the same density, heat capacity and every other macroscopic property would be the same. It would be impossible for a matter antimatter pair to cohabit the same space without attracting eachother by electrostatic forces and annihilating eachother. You clearly don't understand how antimatter works, on top of that you are a smelly, brown, low IQ pajeet subhuman.

>>14480528
No such thing, proven wrong by the Michelson Morley experiment. I have personally done the experiment and I know its not "muh dopler shift".

>>14480498
Relativity can be confirmed with high precision watches and plane flights

>>14480538
Repeat it the experiment in sound sir.

>>14480544
Its not the same thing retard, sound has a medium and forms longitudinal waves, light doesn't. Its also why Tesla was butthurt about relativity, it was building on the idea there was no ether and that means light can't form longitudinal waves which would prevent him from using the resonant frequency of the planet to pump longitudinal EM waves into the earth and transmit power wirelessly.

>>14480540
>one globohomo can be confirmed using other globohomo
No thanks

>its false because it relies on things my political opponents support
just log off then you troglodyte, you using the internet, hell, electronics also furthers their goal.

>>14480501
They simply can't. They were not designed too, in fact they were specifically designed not too as it is the kali yuga.

I have heard many explanations for what Kali yuga is, most of them end in numerology. Also most of these explanations were utterred by people who haven't even heard of the Upanishads or any actual Indian metaphysics that hasn't been butchered by western existential garbage.
Anyway, I was referring to "the audience" realizing it and not the puppet actor whose parroted lines are simply being quoted for the purpose of rhetoric.

>>14480508
>It's triangulation
Yeah I know. So it has nothing to do with Einsteins Velocity Composition Laws.
>it they don't account for time dilation
Who is "they"? The department of defense? The navy? How would you know? It's classified.

>They abandoned ONE theory of relativity with a null result.
They should have abandoned it based on no starting basis in reality as a hypothesis. Speed of light? Space having properties to warp? Time actually existing? Imagine, oh wait it was imagined simply to describe the results of said null result. You have is a "theory" based on the null result of a hypothesis rather than an actual hypothesis. I won't stop you from calling it an "Accurate description" though, since it does accurately described the stuff it imagined up in the first place.


>>14480538
>proven wrong by the Michelson Morley experiment
Null results don't prove anything.
>I have personally done the experiment
So you personally got a null result just like the dozens of subsequent experiments after the MM experiment? Cool story bro.

>>14480540
>Everything is relative to cesium atom farts
Okay, what about hydrogen atom farts which made the cesium one?

>>14480544
Ether will be undetectable. Just like Einstein said.

>>14480554
>sound has a medium
Sound IS the medium, perturbed. It's what the medium does.
>light doesn't
yes it does.

>>14480561
Unlike you I don't use the internet to mindlessly consume propaganda. I try to help others too

>>14480554
How do you explain Feist's experimental results? >>14479656

>>14480573
You using electronics creates a market for it which relies on global supply chains and pushes globalist agendas, wanna stop globalism? log off.

>>14480527
>What're you saying... that I can just check the Early Life section?
>No, Neo, I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready... you won't have to.

>>14480578
Using your enemy's own tricks against them is standard tactics you faggot

>>14480521
I saw the glitch in the matrix and went down the rabbit hole. I started looking into history first knowing it was being re-written and fabricated and I knew it has been going on a for a long time so I started looking for the oldest books I could find, the older the better and realizing the ancients were just some dumb superstitious hicks, they were way way smarter than modern humans.

I guess if you want to start from the beginning I read the Da Vince code in uni when I was a sophomore in 2001. It got me interested in esoteric symbology and biblical history. After I read it I read angels and demons etc but then I read the book the Da Vinci code was based on, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This further got me interested in the Templars and Masons and all these esoteric codes left all through history by all these geniuses like Da Vinci, the american founding fathers (like the movie National Treasure) and countless others like Tesla etc and I started trying to figure out what all this shit meant. All these symbols on the back of the dollar bill and in Resistance paintings etc. and learning everything's TRUE origin from the beginning, not from the bullshit textbooks given to us by the schools. It was just a rabbit hole that kept going deeper and deeper. Who are the people making all these lies and what is their end game of all this brainwashing and re-writing history etc. Eventually led me to the Jews of course and reading books by the Nazis and so forth about what the Jews are doing. But it started out a search for the truth, espeically the history and what they are hiding and turned into a spiritual journey as well.

I mean I had studied the dhammapada since I was 18 and vedic thought but I never really understood the esoteric side until I learned all the science they leave out in school. idkl I could go on for hours on this topic, all the glitches in the matrix that woke me up but that is the tldr

>>14480575
Sound waves are longitudinal and needs a medium to propagate. Ligh doesn't . On top of this the speed of sound is different in different states of matter. Sound shows the existance of a medium because it always had one. You are only associating them both because all you understand is that they are waves. By that logic ethe can be a solid liquid or gas.
>>14480590
When was the last time /pol/ managed to do something again? Whatever you're doing, it's definitely not working. I'm not left wing myself, I think men can't be women and that abortion is murder but ever since Trump failed to stop mail in voting and lost the elections, /pol/ has become increasingly deranged. It looks less like a bunch of people fighting against nonsense and more like an active campaign to label the right as anti-science.

>>14480536
nah man, you never stfu long enough to learn anything. If you asked questions every once in a while instead of running your mouth like a motor boat acting you have all the answers then you might actually be able to learn something. But as it is you are just a fool and you will remain a fool until you learn to discipline yourself.

>>14480602
I'm not learning anything from a literal shithead like you who can't be taught to shit in a toilet Get the fuck off the internet and take a shower Pajeet.

>>14479101
>hating wrong things

He was obviously rational

>>14480578
Not that anon, but I will use the internet for the (original) intended purpose they said it was for. They can take their "gift" back anytime they want if they want to contradict those edicts.
In other words I was meant to globalize the world, not a group of elite rich eugenicists.

>>14480596
>y that logic ethe can be a solid liquid or gas.
"waves" of what? It's what something does. Calling it "waves"

>When was the last time /pol/ managed to do something again?
They got you to advertise them rent free.

>Whatever you're doing, it's definitely not working.
So say nothing
>I'm not left wing myself, I think men can't be women and that abortion is murder but ever since Trump failed to stop mail in voting and lost the elections, /pol/ has become increasingly deranged. It looks less like a bunch of people fighting against nonsense and more like an active campaign to label the right as anti-science.

Well thank you for mentioning all of that stuff that no one else in this thread mentioned except you. Now tell me why /pol/ should have to do anything when they have free labor at their disposal?

>>14480555
Are fucking watches and planes fake as well?>>14480567
Afaik even good enough quartz watches will do

>>14480596
I know what's the standard cope. But how do you explain Feist's experimental results?
He found that the two way speed of sound looked isotropic in an acoustic Michelson-Morley setup. Which is the "unexpected" null result done in the aether. Is there an acoustic spacetime, too?

You're trying to explain transverse waves to me. Transverse waves need a medium to travel in, too.
How do you explain this old paper where an effect of polarization in found in sound (longitudinal wave in air)?
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.os-2.46.224

The aether was rejected because light needed to be transverse in order to explain polarization, and because of the Michelson-Morley null result.
Why do little acknowledged experiments in sound show that longitudinal waves are able to do all the "contradictory" stuff that led to the rejection of material aether?

Physics is about experiments first, theory second. Shouldn't this warrant more direct experimentation?

>>14480605
hahahah look how mad he is in 2022. Imagine being this mad on the internet

>>14480614
>"waves" of what? It's what something does. Calling it "waves"
*calling it "waves" doesn't elaborate *what* is actually waving.

>>14480615
>precision is a spectrum

Lol so is light, and idiots think that means it has a constant "speed" for some reason.

>>14480540
>Relativity can be confirmed with high precision watches and plane flights
Then why can't I buy a super cheap and accurate relativity based velocity sensor?

>>14480567
the yugas are galactic seasons that change many things in our reality. I explain it here
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>14480617
All waves are just statistics.
Sound waves are statistic approximations of many N-body collisions between molecules.
Light waves are statistic approximations of many N-body emissions of photons.

Sound waves require a medium because they're collisional, light waves don't because they're not.

>>14480567
think of how people are cranky and tired in the morning, in the afternoon they are more lively and energetic and in the evening wind down again. These are based on the angles of the sun and how they effect us, Well that isnt the only cycle we have, the planets positions and magnetic fields and frequencies effect a lot of things. They are the gods after all, they govern our reality. Humans grow dumber in the kali yuga and shrink in size among many other things

>>14480632
I understand that this is the mental model you have made for yourself. I don't disagree with the basis for the theory of fluid dynamics, from which we derive the theory of sound waves.
How do you explain Feist's experimental results? How do you explain the polarization of sound?
If an animal quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck, is it a reasonable question to ask whether it is a duck? Or because some physicists heard it quack in a cave and it sounded nothing like a duck, must we call it something else?

>>14480567
there are many that believe white genocide and the darkie population explosion is part of the mechanics of the kali yuga and I tend to agree with them. This is the dark age, the time when morons flourish and intellgience is looked at as a hideous deformity. Just watch your television at how stupid the programming is, how dumbed down everything is to cater to droolers. Who is rewarded in this system? Our best and brightest minds or our dumbest apes who can run and jump fast so a lot of other mindless apes tune in to watch them do it during the playoffs? Just look at the steady decline of everything to just mornic tier. TV shows like the karashians being huge hits, reality shows of double digit IQ fucktards MTC etc etc, It is all because of the kali yuga
https://esotericawakening.com/15-predictions-for-kali-yuga

>>14480624
>as Pythagoras said “All is number.”
Except when that theory contradicts itself when you compare magnitudes of the most base foundation of said number system (1/root2)

>Sacred geometry
Oh okay, so tell me what the quantity of this irrational is if you would be so kind. Surely it must be a quantity which is why it's always written as a expression/estimate right?

The rest is more elaborately described and explained in detail... by Decartes and Roger Boscovich, but again with the inclusion of more west existentialist/materialist crap such as references to hollywood movies.

>>14480633
>think of how people are cranky and tired in the morning, in the afternoon they are more lively and energetic and in the evening wind down again. These are based on the angles of the sun and how they effect us, Well that isnt the only cycle we have, the planets positions and magnetic fields and frequencies effect a lot of things. They are the gods after all, they govern our reality. Humans grow dumber in the kali yuga and shrink in size among many other things

Okay but like, that's just Zodiac/astrology nonsense. It doesn't explain how it does that. It's re-described geomancy, on a galactic scale.
Magnetic fields? Frequencies? Oh you mean the stuff we constantly bombard ourselves with daily because it's safe and non-ionizing? See there's just descriptions at play, using your descriptions I can come to a whole different conclusion.

>People wake up tired in the morning...because they have to endure another day on black planet. Nothing to live or die for anymore. Saturated with beings like themselves.
They're more lively and energentic in the evening..because they're getting closer to sleep, the time of day that they can feel like they're leaving black planet.

>>14480665
I do describe it, in detail, and gave you a link to an entire article I wrote to explain it and no it is not nonsense. it is fact.

>>14480653
>https://esotericawakening.com/15-predictions-for-kali-yuga
It's pretty insane how those accurate predictions were made thousands of years ago.

>>14479619
train has high resistance to motion change
you have small
means more motion change gets forced on you, same compounds physics rule train and you thus you get destroyed.

Are you one of these "overcomplicated mechanics" fags that shits himself on basic classical concepts?
Maybe classical physics was too hard for you? It requires way more abstraction and imagination, thats why you attempt to put them onto "paper" so you dont have to use your head and use quantum laws instead.

>>14480614
>Not that anon, but I will use the internet for the (original) intended purpose they said it was for.
have fun when they just decide to do away with statehood because "We must remove tarrifs to ease the supply chain crisis"

>They got you to advertise them rent free.
I can delete that post and it will be gone without an archive? What advertisement are we talking about again?
>"waves" of what? It's what something does. Calling it "waves"
>calling it "waves" doesn't elaborate *what* is actually waving.

I have been specifying what waves we have been talking about all thread, EM waves are waves or oscillations of the electric and magnetic waves, sound waves are oscillations of the pressure and density in the medium
>>14480652
Feists results are bullshit, the speed of light was greater than the velocity of the earth which allowed us to calculate using the formula in the first place. He wen't with the speed of sound in air at 20*C which is 343.37m/s where as the earths velocity is 468.03m/s. if you plug this into the formula you'd get an imaginary number for all angles greater than 0.8 radians or 47.19*. If he did it with sound in a liquid or solid, which are greater than the speed of the earth, we could have a conversation. On top of this sound is very hard to focus, where as you can do the experiment with lasers for light, which are highly directional. His system could get interference paterns from background noise which would be visible unlike background radiation when we do it with light.

>>14480705
Thats your words not a numerical analysis
if a quantity "resists" another it should have a negative corellation at worst and be inversely proportional at best.
Both momentum, measure of motion, and force, rate of change in motion are directly proportional to mass, therefore the definition of mass being a quantity that resists change in motion is BS. On top of this, for most of Classical Mechanics history, physicists couldn't explain the discrepancy between gravitational and inertial mass. Mass was never a properly defined quantity and had to be measured through indirect means such as torque or weight. If space-time is metaphysical an therefore bs due to indirect measurement, so is Mass.

Universe is inside ocean of photons.
Same as ocean of water molecules.
Same as atmosphere of air molecules.
Both have waves and speed of travel.
Electrons once pushed inside such ocean, push photons around them. Creating waves, if you hold ball underwater and move it forward and back repeately, you will create sinusoid wave in all directions just like EM waves.
Photons collect near gravity regions, thats where reference frame comes from, photons are almost stationary to earth.
Earth is big moving ball that generates huge wave around several Hz frequency, this is also why you can find low Hz signals that perfectly match solar system planets radius divided by speed of light.

>>14480712
You disagree with his red line, which is the expectation of his analysis of the experiment. I don't care about that.
What interests me is the black line, which is the result of the experiment: the actual data.
How do you explain that Feist's experimental results show an apparently isotropic two way speed of sound, just like the Michelson-Morley experiment for light? If the result is not remarkable when it happens for sound, why is it remarkable when it happens for light?
Did
>background noise
conspire against him in such a way that the black curve would look isotropic in all angles every time?

>>14480682
This article would have me starving myself to death by means of fasting and standing in the sun with my shoes off for "proper grounding". It's patently absurd and quite clear that you simply mixed up several popular conspiracies into one article. It's one big "accurate description", just like the fuzzy haired crackpots.

>>14480694
Tyranny isn't new. These "cycles" were simply recorded and caused by humanity itself, by action and reaction of their own accord. Polarized masses are needed to turn the wheel, you think magnets know what they're doing when they generate your power? Of course not, they're torpid pieces of material engineered for a specific purpose from their start.

>>14480712
>have fun when they just decide to do away with statehood because "We must remove tarrifs to ease the supply chain crisis"
That's what self-sufficient is for.
>no you can't do that
Lol so kill me or give me nothing to lose and see how it turns out for you. Like I said, action and reaction.
>I can delete that post and it will be gone without an archive?
No need for the question mark. I won't be as easy to delete the humans that read it. Archive? History is a great archive, tyrants learn from it all the time to repeat it.

have been specifying what waves we have been talking about all thread, EM waves are waves or oscillations of the electric and magnetic waves
>waves are oscilations of waves
>verb is verb of verb

k

>sound waves are oscillations of the pressure and density in the medium
"The medium" being the same for em waves I assume?

>>14480723
You can explain gravity by every particle being connected with every other particle by invisible spring, which gets stronger the closer its compressed. Its pointless to go lower by that with "spacetime" or "gravitons", springs have waves aswell when moved rapidly... its dumb physics from LSD addicted soientists with too much fantasy

>>14480567
>ah I know. So it has nothing to do with Einsteins Velocity Composition Laws.
you can still triangulate using einsteins composition laws because the speed of the planet is much smaller than the speed of light
>Null results don't prove anything.
They set up their experiment to find the velocity of the earth relative to the speed of light propagating in ether, they found the speed of light is invariant, meaning there's no ether from the reference frame of which we can have a relative velocity and the experiment was designed on a flawed proposition.
>Sound IS the medium, perturbed. It's what the medium does.
thank you for finally demonstrating that you dont understand how the propagation of waves work and your education in physics is as far as a US highschool will take you.

Sound is the oscillation of the pressure waves, the pressure waves can only occur in a medium of particles which can exert pressure by collisions. The wave is not the media.

>>14480712
Directional laser-like sound is a thing with ultrasounds.
Next.

>>14480732
*fields
EM waves are oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, brainfart
I'm not the only one having to correct statements in this thread.

>>14480749
Its impedance in a low density media like air isn't high enough. Every other application of ultrasound is through solid, colloid or liquids, where its directional, and its speed is still lower than the earths velocity.

>>14480731
There's data that deviates well beyond the red, which should not even be possible, on top of that, he's measuring the speed of the car and not the earth.The scatterplot is way too spread as we get to 47.19, the critical angle for when the velocity, which shows its clearly being influenced by the non-inertial reference frame of the earth. This gets even worse as we get to larger angles.

>>14480783
>where its directional, and its speed is still lower than the earths velocity.
where the impedance is higher and its directional
and the speed of sound in air is still lower than the earths velocity.

>>14480783
>the critical angle for when the velocity
the critical angle at which the velocity of the earth would equal the speed of sound in air.

>>14480783
I don't think you understand what the red line shows, how it's irrelevant, or even what the experiment is doing.
It's measuring the speed of sound relative to the air, the same way the Michelson-Morley measured the speed of light relative to the aether, i.e. the average speed of sound in a round trip. The speed of the Earth is irrelevant here. It found the speed to be isotropic. The same exact result for light, brought Einstein to postulate that the BLACK curve you see, the ISOTROPIC curve, is actually a flat line.
The RED curve, the ANISOTROPIC curve, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA. The fact that it doesn't match IS THE POINT. But you have to trust Feist's analysis. You don't have to, because the BLACK dots match the BLACK line, which shows isotropy, where anisotropy, in any case, is expected of sound (as was expected of light). Even with that spread, it shouldn't follow the trend of the black line at all.

>>14480747
>because the speed of the planet is much smaller than the speed of light
But how do they know given that light has never been proven to have a speed?

>They set up their experiment to find the velocity of the earth relative to the speed of light propagating in ether, they found the speed of light is invariant, meaning there's no ether from the reference frame of which we can have a relative velocity and the experiment was designed on a flawed proposition.
So it's worse than I thought. It shouldn't even classify as an experiment.

>thank you for finally demonstrating that you dont understand how the propagation of waves work
What is the issue exactly? What causes the propagation in the first place? How is it defined as a "Wave" if there is no medium deforming?

>your education in physics is as far as a US highschool will take you.
Being educated in physics or not doesn't really hold much weight if the premise of it has nothing to do with reality. All you're doing is red flagging me to likeminded drones like yourself, it doesn't mean anything to me and I don't take it as an insult. I pity you.

>Sound is the oscillation of the pressure waves,
>Noun is a verb
Cool. How?

>the pressure waves can only occur in a medium of particles which can exert pressure by collisions
How? How does discretization of a medium explain how it causes the waving...of said particulates? The cause seems purely geomancy from the info you've given me.

>The wave is not the media.
A "wave" is not even something in the first place. It's what the media does.

>>14480783
>*fields
>EM waves are oscillations of electric and magnetic fields, brainfart
The devils in the details buddy, and you're dealing with the most pedantic, atomistic weenies on earth. Speaking of, they love the next question; "What's a field/what causes a field".

>I'm not the only one having to correct statements in this thread.
At least others have the decency to do it themselves and not be asked to.

>>14480810
>I don't think you understand what the red line shows, how it's irrelevant, or even what the experiment is doing.
Its measuring the velocity of the sound relative to the car.
> because the BLACK dots match the BLACK line, which shows isotropy, where anisotropy, in any case, is expected of sound (as was expected of light).
It doesn't match the black line at all outside of 22*. The sound source isn't directional enough, the wavelengths for sound calculated have way too much error and we can't see shit beyond the fact that it deviates from the isotropic curve as the angle gets larger.

>>14480816

>But how do they know given that light has never been proven to have a speed?

The speed of light was measured prior to michelson morley both directly by Focault and Fizeau, and indirectly through experiments determining the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum.
> How is it defined as a "Wave" if there is no medium deforming?
Deformation of a media was never a requisite for waves
>How is it defined as a "Wave" if there is no medium deforming
anything that moves in a trajectory satisfying the differential equation for waves is a wave, media is irrelevant.
>Being educated in physics or not doesn't really hold much weight if the premise of it has nothing to do with reality. All you're doing is red flagging me to likeminded drones like yourself, it doesn't mean anything to me and I don't take it as an insult. I pity you.

If you can't solve a differential equation, you don't know what you're talking about and your arguing from incredulity. Just because the math is hard doesn't mean its not real. Space-time changing isn't something new, Freidrich Gauss figured thats the case for non euclidean geometry and used it to come up with differential geometry long before einstein was born, and his only goal was to survey land accurately. Einstein simply showed using differential geometry that gravitational attraction is a consequence of the geometry of space time.

>>14480845
>we can't see shit beyond the fact that it deviates from the isotropic curve as the angle gets larger.
If you typo'd and meant anisotropic curve, that is the point, so we don't see shit beyond the point of the experiment, therefore the data is sufficient.
If you didn't typo, you're a faggot.

>>14480816
>Noun is a verb
>Cool. How?
what noun is a verb?
the only verb in that sentence is an auxilary one "is"
a wave is any form of motion that repeats itself in regular intervals in space or time., its not a verb, "waving" is a verb "oscillating" is a verb, "wave" and "oscillation" are names of the actions being performed, you cant have "osciallationed" or be "oscillationing"
but you can have "oscillated" or be "oscillating"
If theres anything called a false equivalency, its this

>A "wave" is not even something in the first place. It's what the media does.
its something that a physical quantity does, that physical quantity might need a force to exist like with pressure or not, i.e EM fields. You're equating it falsely to the media.

>>14480847
>If you typo'd and meant anisotropic curve
didn't you just say its not even relevant to the experiment?

I'm saying its bull because it doesn't even fit the isotropic cure, so the claim you made at the start that its isotropic, like light was is questionable, especially at large angles.

>>14480652
>I understand that this is the mental model you have made for yourself.
It's not a 'mental model' it's what it fucking is. Fields, waves, stress tensors, these are all just mathematical approximations of many, many, many, many N-body interactions or emissions.

>>14480538
>I have personally done the experiment and I know its not "muh dopler shift".
"muh dopler shift" isn't about the experimental data, but the analysis. There's a pdf that makes the case that the MM result should be the same for both aether and relativity.

>>14480859
>didn't you just say its not even relevant to the experiment?
Yes, the specific red line he draws, in case you don't like his anisotropic curve, is irrelevant. You were complaining about it and I don't want to waste time with literal red herrings.

What is relevant is that the black dots follow the trend of the black line. It fits perfectly.
If the data followed a different curve, even with the noise from the data you see at angle 0, 90 and maybe 45, it wouldn't follow the black line AT ALL past the beginning. The average of the points would clearly diverge. Instead, the average of the points in Feist's data is exactly the black line.
You complain about noisy data, but Fig 6 is a noisy 90 degree measurement, and Fig 7 is a precise measurement that fits the line perfectly, even more than the 22 degree angle that you claim fits best.

>>14480866
>There's a pdf that makes the case that the MM result should be the same for both aether and relativity.
I'm "discussing" it right now with a retard that thinks noisier data perfectly averaging to the curve they're supposed to fit means the data is completely uncorrelated to the curve and could follow a different curve altogether.
PDF here >>14479656

>>14480873
>aether and relativity not aether and air
nvm I'm too tired for this shit.

>>14480859
tl;dr: l2statistics faggot Feist's data fits the isotropy curve, the MMX has been replicated in air, light is a longitudinal wave, cope, seethe, dilate like your precious spacetime. I'm out.

>>14480873
Until I see the other data sets done using the same 220KHz ceramic converter its Bull to me. Hell I'm more than interested in repeating this experiment for my masters. Just to see how BS it
is.

>14480875
> l2statistics faggot Feist's data fits the isotropy curve
>only fits for 22*
>but he repeats it with better gear
then its not a fair comparison. You're a tard who can't into basic experimental procedure. You can't solve a single differential equation, you think relativity is a sham because you're too lazy to study differential geometry, and you are crying about space-time being fictitious when ether is also fictitious and proven to not exist. Project your insecurity to someone else tard.

general relativity predicts a static universe and observational evidence shows that to be false.
>oh wait no!! we can still save it!! lets attach this ad hoc complex function to fix it so relativity matches observed results after the observations were made. we'll use notational tricks to call our complex multivariable function a constant.
general relativity predicts that black holes form directly from the collapse of neutrons, which are treated as fundamental particles by einstein an the gang
>black holes are real!! that proves relativity is true, i don't care if quarks exist or that their degeneracy pressure limits are incalculable
observations of galactic rotation curves demonstrate that relativity does not accurately predict gravitational interactions
>nooo!! now that we have the observations in hand, lets invent 95% of the universe being made of phantom dark matter and position that dark matter in a way that preserves relativity

so much cringe, all in created out of fear of being accused of antisemitism for naysaying the symbolic king of atheists and jews

>>14479101
Because he's an overrated schizo

>>14479179
This is the correct answer to a dumb question
/thread

>>14480845
The speed of light was measured prior to michelson morley both directly by Focault and Fizeau,

The problem is they didn't know how light actually works so they didn't know what they were looking for. They just assumed it had a speed because it was visualized using rotating mirrors. They didn't account for the fact that there was always light there being reflected, the waves constructive and destructively interfering itself. Also the application of a polarizing lens to this experiment would completely negate the premise light traveling and being dependent on the medium by which it is induced in. No light would reach the end until the proper conditions are achieved.

>and indirectly through experiments determining the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum.
There is no vacuum.
>Deformation of a media was never a requisite for waves
Of what? Waves of what? Really there is no requisite because they don't actually exist. It's what something does.

>anything that moves in a trajectory satisfying the differential equation for waves is a wave, media is irrelevant.
So you're just semantically using the word "wave" until it has no actual meaning then? Or just describing the squiggly shape you pattern recognize from quantifying what you deny isn't an actual quantity?

>If you can't solve a differential equation, you don't know what you're talking about and your arguing from incredulity.

>Just because the math is hard doesn't mean its not real.
It's a way of describing. Saying it is or isn't real is meaningless.


>Space-time changing isn't something new
Space has no properties and time used to be well understood as a pure concept.

>>14480854
>a wave is any form of motion that repeats itself in regular intervals in space or time
>Reify words into deverbal nouns based on a description of an imaginary place.
This is how religion is made.

>You're equating it falsely to the media
And you're particularizing ONE universe. As there were separate parts to itself?

>>14479581
At least use lowercase p for momentum. I thought you meant pressure at first.

>>14479559
>No. There is no next theory. Classical mechanics was always correct.
Orbit of Mercury?

>>14480899
This is a dumb reply to another dumb reply in one the most dumb threads on /sci/

>>14480906
MUH EEFER

>>14480906
Predicted by classical precession.

>>14480901
>The problem is they didn't know how light actually works so they didn't know what they were looking for.
how do you know? were you there?
>hey just assumed it had a speed because it was visualized using rotating mirrors.
they knew long before that because Ole Christensen Rømer measured the speed of light using discrepancies in the orbital periods of Jupiters moons in the 17th century.
>and indirectly through experiments determining the permitivity and permeability of a vacuum.
There is no vacuum.
As we approach a vacuum, the permitivity and permeability reach specific values, its an approximation that works for calculus, and the error wouldn't be worse off than focault and fizeaus method.
>So you're just semantically using the word "wave" until it has no actual meaning then? Or just describing the squiggly shape you pattern recognize from quantifying what you deny isn't an actual quantity?
what are you even trying to do with the double negative at the end?
I'm saying your linguistic definition of wave is irrelevant, mind you, you played the semantics game by making an argument from grammar.
A wave is something that satisfies the differential equation for a wave, and something that does that will exhibit periodic motion.
>It's a way of describing. Saying it is or isn't real is meaningless
moving the goalpost
the way of describing the conclusions of relativity is through tensors, using the principles of differential geometry.
If you are making an argument about how that is wrong, you'd also be disqualifying non GR applications of Differential Geometry. like in electrodynamics, biophysics, structural geology, control theory which all work without relying on any of the problematic ideas you complained about
If you're argument is how the media describes it is wrong,you're right, they don't understand the math and try to make sense of it through metaphysics. However their opinion never mattered because their explanations were not mathematically rigorous.

>>14480961
where

>>14480977
We've had this discussion before. Tell me how the mass of Mercury is calculated first and we can go from there.

>>14480983
>We've had this discussion before
I haven't.
>Tell me how the mass of Mercury is calculated first and we can go from there.
A quick search brings up several different methods. Again, I've never had this conversation so I don't know what you're getting at or what you'd accept.

>>14480991
I'm not in a mood to repeat myself but here's a paper if you're interested.

>>14480991
Here is a less technical paper with more exposition as well.

>>14481027
>>14481038
Thanks. May check them out more later. A very cursory glance raised some red flags for me but that's honestly not saying much. Honestly I'm not all that interested in Mercury/precession either. It's literally just the first bit of evidence that comes up (at least chronologically) for GR that famously disagrees with Newtonian mechanics. Did not know it was controversial. I don't even think it's the best evidence for GR.

>>14480968
>how do you know?
Because they were performing experiments to figure it out. Credit to them for trying to figure out the speed, but that doesn't work out very well if the phenomena you're observing literally can't exist until certain conditions are made at the "Starting/stopping" point of a wave.

>its an approximation that works for calculus,

It's a quantified description yes. It doesn't explain anything.

>what are you even trying to do with the double negative at the end?
Form a positive. It's poor grammar from those who can't comprehend negation and useful for talking about something that literally doesn't exist.

>I'm saying your linguistic definition of wave is irrelevant
I'm saying the same thing to you. Because again, "it's what something does". Not something.

>making an argument
No
>from grammar.
Rhetoric

>A wave is something that satisfies the differential equation for a wave
Does this have significance in explaining what a "Wave" actually is? No.

>moving the goalpost
I never set the post bro. I'm not even arguing. I'm still figuring out whether it's something to be argued over.

>the way of describing the conclusions of relativity is through tensors, using the principles of differential geometry.
Yes, but relativity itself is a description.

>If you are making an argument about how that is wrong
I am specifically calling it an "accurate description", which it is because imaginations can be accurately described till kingdom come.

>you'd also be disqualifying non GR applications of Differential Geometry. like in electrodynamics, biophysics, structural geology, control theory which all work without relying on any of the problematic ideas you complained about
All I'm saying is a description isn't an explanation.

>If you're argument is how the media describes it is wrong,
The media doesn't "describe". It's the foundation. No medium no "wave".

>>14481044
>I don't even think it's the best evidence for GR.
It's not the best evidence for GR. But once you look into the three "pillars" of general relativity (precession, light deflection, redshift) it becomes quickly apparent that GR is really a stool standing on only two legs. Relativists like to cite the overwhelming body of evidence for their theory, but when you start to dig deeply into each claim, you find that the picture is much murkier than originally claimed. When you point out these difficulties, the relativists will say, well, sure this particular experiment doesn't actually *disprove* the aether, and this particular effect actually isn't statistically significant, and sure there are "anomalies" we've observed that may require "new physics" to understand, but the theory itself doesn't live or die by any single experiment or observation but by all of them taken as a whole.

The problem is, if all of the tests fail individually, there is no whole.

>>14479101
let me just drop this in here. the fags in the old thread are getting boring.

>>14479105
lol

>>14481133
kinda funny I guess.

>>14480732
>It's patently absurd and quite clear that you simply mixed up several popular conspiracies into one article
You wouldnt even be having this discussion or know about any of this without me and my work psued, I find it quite bizarre you lack of the self awareness to be somewhat open minded while being attacked at the very same time by mouth breathers doing to you what you are attempting to do to me. There is nothing being discussed in this thread that didnt come directly from me pseud

>>14481088
one of the dumbest things I've ever seen

>>14480732
It took five years for people like you to even understand the basics of what I was trying to teach here while the droolers called me x and schizo and now after you finally understand the basics you are the expert and Im the schizo again eh? fucking lol, this board is nothing but ego maniacs, you are just babby at step one kiddo, I am so far ahead of the curve you people here can barely eve comprehend the most basic topic for me to pontificate on

>>14480540
No it can't

Tesla hated relativity because he knew that Einstein's work was all in a vacuum. He understood that Leonhard Euler had disproven Newton's theory that the universe was a vacuum. He gained advantage by applying the work of Euler which at the time was discredited, and still is today. For that reason, Tesla's inventions exceed the technology produced by today's American scientists. This is why Tesla's work is classified for military use only.

I have a new name for some of you. You guys are adherefags.. Because you desperately adhere to theories alleged to be proven by mainstream science. Anything that's said against muh Einstein or muh Newton, is to you an act of heresy. That's what makes you a bunch of adherefags.

what the fuck is wrong /sci/? When did it become a shill board for mainstream academia?

/sci/ never questions Einstein or Newton
/sci/ discredits Euler and Tesla

you guys do weird shit like attribute pi to Euler's work when in reality he never wrote about pi. then you hate on Tesla saying he never invented anything useful while his inventions underpin an entire department of US intelligence capabilities. It's really sad, to watch you guys interact. For that reason, I have cut you all from the team.

>>14481401
>You wouldnt even be having this discussion or know about any of this without me and my work psued
You're not Einstein
You're not Poincare
You're not Maxwell, Gauss Faraday, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Tesla or any other Electrical engineer of note.
You're not Walter Russell, Mark Twain or any other buddy of Electrical engineers of note
You're not Hutchison, Ed Leedskalnin, Eric Dollard or any other Electrical engineer of no note.

You're a namefag, on an anonymous imageboard. Literally a living contradiction. You have nothing but a paper that references more than one of the above people, just like the millions of other papers before you.

>>14481428
>and Im the schizo again eh?
Your words, not mine

>I am so far ahead of the curve you people here can barely eve comprehend the most basic topic for me to pontificate on
Be careful, the air is thin up there where you're above everyone.

>>14480908

>>14481088
>Geometric optics BTFO
Based optics hater.

>>14479101
Because it doesn't explain anything. If it had the predictive power it claims, it would be respected by the world's leading GPS engineer, who for some reason instead wrote a book titled Escape from Einstein.
https://www.biblio.com/book/escape-einstein-hatch-ronald-r/d/94329363
>>14481447
There's already a term for them, nostril oxidizers.
>>14481503
The midwit meme explains their behavior. Midwits always join a cult because it makes them feel smarter. They're exactly the segment of the population who used to be militant christians and heliocentrists during Galileo's era. They wouldn't have bothered to read Galileo or even the bible, they just like feeling smart and powerful for holding the beliefs the most powerful authority tells them they should hold.

>>14481407
>one of the dumbest things I've ever seen
let me guess. you think it's right for people to just outline their ideas is sparse points and it's up to the reader to "connect the dots." You have any idea what rigor is? Have you ever had to write a proof or derivation? Einstein's derivation for time dilation wouldn't even get full points on a undergrad physics exam.

>>14482540
That thread shows GPS uses relativity, did you read it?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

>>14480441
>Because it was never right.
How is it not right?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

>>14481503
this board is literally anonymous redit, psued central

>>14483120
Tell me about it man, there's namefag called bodhi that's a massive retard. I don't argue with him though, it's a lot funnier just to read some of his insane ramblings.

>>14481510
Yah wel;l I was smart enough to figure this out and you mouth breathers. It me spoon feeding you before you could even begint o understand it so I may not be a genius but even by your own loogic I am so far ahead of hacks like you I am at least a genius compared to you. I gave you the studies, the sources and literally soon fed you every step of the way so you can eat my ass because you arent insulting me, no matter how much lower I am to all the people you list you and the rest of the mouth breathers are 100 times lower than that because I am exponentially above all of you hacks. The information and knowledge I have to you psueds you would havent found on our own in an entire lifetime. Not only would you not be smart enough to figure it out, you weren't even smart enough to look

>>14483143
>you wouldn't even be aware of my schizo visit if I didn't shit it out it all over the science board REEEEEEEE
Wow!

I've been trying to read an old New York Times article about Tesla, but I don't want to pay those fags for a subscription. Can anyone find this:

Sept. 7, 1932
>SAYS CANCERS YIELD TO ELECTROSURGERY; Dr. Kolischer Tells Physical Therapy Congress Results Surpass Those With Knife. DR. TESLA BACKS REPORT Inventor Also Describes Use of High-Frequeney Current Up to 1,000,000 Volts to Cleanse Body.

>>14479101
Because he's right GE is bullshit and the Aether model is the most correct one, many people here seem to think LE SCIENCE doesn't fall to the same bullshit everything else own (that being a little club where if you're liked enough media can push bullshit around to support you). Kikestein became the darling because he was a kike, despite being a known plagiarist, a similar thing happened with Marconi, but it was him being more so of the elite class, known plagirist but pushed as the "father of radio" because he was kike/elite approved. Now lets go back to Aether for a second all the little circle jerking "scientists" always fall back on the Michelson Morley experiment whenever they want to bring up that Aether is " DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONKED" despite the entire expeirment being predicated on an explanation of Aether no one knowledgeable on it even remotely believed, them thinking that Light would be MOVING through the Aether like some sort of particle, where in fact many instead like Telsa attributed the phenomena of light to be rarefactions and compressions OF the Aether, much like soundwaves are to the medium they are in. So the Michelson Morely experiment, faulty on even its premise WAS going to fail REGARDLESS and once it did all the little circle jerking scientist were jumping around sucking each other's cocks talking about Aether is "DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONKED OH GOD ITS SO DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONKED"

Its most "scientists" will never truly be able to understand Teslas latter stuff because they predicate all their knowledge on an inherently faulty understanding of the Universe that they take for truth. Its why the for some reason despite apparently never being "certain" about anything sit down say "WARDENCLYFE WOULD NEVER WORK ITS DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONKED" like that retarded black science man then they go off and circle jerk their own retarded "theories" that makes absolutely no fucking sense and are better off as sci fi concepts.

>>14479222
>Because something works on our erroneous understanding that means its the true explanation of how the universe actually operates.

>>14485139
>Light
>Longitudinal waves
Jesus christ.

>>14480632
>Light waves are statistic approximations of many N-body emissions of photons.

>He really thinks photons are a thing

>>14480632
>Sound waves require a medium because they're collisional, light waves don't because they're not.

Holy shit this is how retarded "scientists" are yet the sit their huffing their own farts over things that makes no sense

>>14485149
Uh oh here comes the retard to talk about his made bullshit of "photons", bet you think light is something that is "moving" also retard

>>14485159
At no point has anyone thought that light was a longitudinal wave, even in a ether model, it would be a fucking longitudinal wave. You retard.

>>14485166
Are literally fucking retarded or did you not read what I just posted dipshit. How in the fuck can you say "hurrrr NO ONE THOUGHT LIGHT WORKED LIKE THAT" when just posted it you dumb fucker. Maybe if you spend more time looking back in old text instead of sucking the cook of kike backed 'scientists" you'd actually learn something

>>14479184
how the fuck are niggas saying the theory of relativity is wrong in the year of our lord thousand and twenty two

>>14485178
At no point in the history of the ether has anyone thought that light was transverse. You're just controlled opposition.

>>14485207
Uh huh yeah sure, go back to sucking of Kikestein

>>14485139
Go back faggot

>>14485199
Retardation and delusions of grandeur. You shouldn't be too surprised, modern society has created an entire generation of entitled narcissists. Zoomers and millenials brought up on TikTok, and "participation awards", they don't understand that they can be wrong. So they see their favorite "infulencer" talking about how fucking crystals and Tesla and other new age lefty shit, and they just latch onto it. Because why spend time studying when you can just claim you're right?

These are going to be the future. We're looking at a new dark age.

>>14485214
>These are going to be the future. We're looking at a new dark age.

Yeah you're right dude I'll just live FOR DA SCIENCE. Gotta go get vaxxed I suppose DA SCIENCE tells me its good for me

>>14485213
Wah sad I made fun of your little plagirist kike poster boy?

>>14485233
Keep up the good fight fren, brb my anti 5G necklace just arrived.

>>14485245
Same to you fren, can't wait for DA SCIENCE to go on tell me how Masculinity is too toxic and that I should be taking estrogen pills you know because DA SCIENCE says so.

>>14479105
[eqn]P_f = P_b [/eqn]

>>14479676
>>14479679
Not him but I thought the other anon was joking when he said watch for the reddit non sequitur people.

>>14485139
Your recollection of how the Michelson-Morley experiment went is a bit ahistorical, but it's not different from how the average soientist understands it anyway.

After the Michelson-Morley experiment (1881), Michelson still believed in the aether, as did Poincaré and Lorentz. Only Einstein (1905) sperged out, and had remorses in 1920 when he had to admit that GR had endowed "spacetime" with the properties of an aether.
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/

>>14485166
>At no point has anyone thought that light was a longitudinal wave, even in a ether model, it would be a fucking longitudinal wave. You retard
This is wrong. Euler, for one, thought that "light in the aether is the same thing as sound in air" (from E.T. Whittaker's "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity" 1st Edition p. 103*)
The idea that light was a sound wave in a gaseous was wide spread. In the same book you can find many references to wave-theorists of light having difficulties explaining polarization (whose name came from the particle-theorists of light, who considered it as an effect of light particles being "polarized" to spin around the same axis of rotation) due to the analogy they drew between sound and light.
>for it brought into greater prominence the phenomena of polarization, of which the wave-theorists, still misled by the analogy of light with sound, were unable to give any account. (p. 112)

* from Wikipedia:
>Notwithstanding a notorious controversy on Whitaker's views on the history of special relativity,[1] covered in volume two of the second edition, the books are considered authoritative references on the history of electricity and magnetism[2] as well as classics in the history of physics.[3][4]
If you have a complaint about the source, complain to them.

>>14485166
>>14485281
The first account for polarization by wave-theorists came from Young's HYPOTHESIS that light was a transverse wave (p. 121-122)
>"I have been reflecting," he wrote, " on the possibility of giving an imperfect explanation of the affection of light which constitutes polarization, without departing from the genuine doctrine of undulations. It is a principle in this theory, that all undulations are simply propagated through homogeneous mediums in concentric spherical surfaces like the undulations of sound, consisting simply in the direct and retro-grade motions of the particles in the direction of the radius, with their concomitant condensation and rarefactions. And yet it is possible to explain in this theory a transverse vibration, propagated also in the direction of the radius, and with equal velocity, the motions of the particles being in a certain constant direction with respect to that radius; and this is a polarization"
>If we assume as a mathe-matical postulate, on the undulating theory, without attempting to demonstrate its physical foundation, that a transverse motion may be propagated in a direct line, we may derive from this assumption a tolerable illustration of the subdivision of polarized light by reflexion in an oblique plane,"

No one challenged it experimentally because everyone assumed that transverse waves were the only wave-theoretic solution to the polarization conundrum.
No one repeated the experiments of light with a known longitudinal wave like sound in air, except for two experiments that show that sound waves in air can be polarized.
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.os-2.46.224 (1881) and PDF related.

TL;DR: relativity has been debunked by snopes fact-checkers and light is longitudinal, go tell your friends.

>>14485281
>*in a gaseous medium

>>14480498
dude literally walked in circles around building before entering them

>>14485281
>>14485284

Thank you someone with a brain on this site that isn't just another kike stein cocksucker.

>>14479101
Because it's BS and Einstein is a hack plagiarist that only became known as "le smartest guy that ever lived" because Ashkenazim control the media and academia.

>>14486400
Pretty much this, people seem to think DA SCIENCE works on mertiocracy and that people they suck off in their textbooks are there becasue they are correct or meritocracy, when in reality most of them are hand picked because they are part of the establishment or aid the establishment. Kikestein falls in both groups

>>14483066
>How is it not right?

Your article:
>"The GPS is a navigation and timing system that is operated by the United States Department of Defense (DoD), and therefore has a number of aspects to it that are classified. "

Like I said:
>(and those that haven't elaborated on how their systems work is because it's classified).

>>14485166
Even Tesla specifically said and compared it to a "sound wave in the ether".

>>14485281
Even considering light as a transverse wave the "speed of light" is just a rate of induction (of the medium). To say it has a speed or even travels is a complete misnomer, it's simply an effect induced to exist (in the medium).

>>14479101
He was a gentile chud.

>>14487285
>Even considering light as a transverse wave the "speed of light" is just a rate of induction (of the medium). To say it has a speed or even travels is a complete misnomer, it's simply an effect induced to exist (in the medium).
I find this a bit pedantic, as long as it's understood that a wave is something that happens and propagates in a medium.
Even the relativist thinks that light is a wave propagating in "spacetime", they simply believe that "spacetime" is "nothing", and that "nothing" somehow can act on matter also, despite being immaterial. Which is absurd of course, but it's not the only absurdity they believe.

Waves definitely have a speed though, the speed of propagation.

>>14479101
He was dead SET on aether, but because his foundations were not in place at certain parts of his understanding, his logic fell apart like a house of cards, if he wanted to set up a theory of unified electromagnetism, he would have had to know the full spectrum, from radio waves to gravity wobbles. Pride cost him the fall.

>>14479105
me in the screencap

every model is retarded.
the only true answers are from the bible.
all else is speculation.

>>14479343
And how would you know gods law? Do you peasant dare to know better than the priest?
The priest clearly knows best!

And lets not get started on books like bible only being a collection of texts that were permitted, the church decided what texts to omit in first place.

>>14488111

>>14487477
>I find this a bit pedantic, as long as it's understood that a wave is something that happens and propagates in a medium.
Sort of, but it appeals to the ultimatum. Otherwise you have to acknowledge a "wave" as something that does something. It doesn't. It isn't something and does nothing on "its own", it's what something else does. Like calling the "waves of water" independently discrete from "water".

>Even the relativist thinks that light is a wave propagating in "spacetime", they simply believe that "spacetime" is "nothing", and that "nothing" somehow can act on matter also, despite being immaterial.

Right, and all of that (partly) stems from actually believing a "wave" is something. It's why light was defined as a dualism, despite half the dualism not even satisfying the dualism in the first place! It's like saying my hand emits waves of water when I splash it in a pond. It "emits" no water whatsoever, no "Waves of water" or "particles of water". The "waves" are just the medium ALREADY THERE AND PRESENT being perturbed (the water). This is not traveling, it's "already there". The "speed" is measured as a hysteresis of waters reaction to my hand displacing it. If I were to slowly and coherently poke the water, there would be no waves.

>Waves definitely have a speed though, the speed of propagation.
It's the hysteresis of the medium. Sure you can measure the distance and how much time it takes for that disturbance to "get there", but technically it's "already there". It's "the medium". It's also why it's undetectable, a still pond, pure potential that is actualized when...you do anything to it. The act of measuring it disturbs the waters. The maximum rate it can be disturbed? Perhaps this is "the speed of light", but as we know that's not constant and dependent on the medium.

>>14487477
>Waves definitely have a speed though, the speed of propagation.
Waves don't have a speed, they aren't a real physical thing they are attributes of a medium.

>>14487285
>Even considering light as a transverse wave the "speed of light" is just a rate of induction (of the medium). To say it has a speed or even travels is a complete misnomer, it's simply an effect induced to exist (in the medium).

Pretty much this sadly most retards can't comprehend this and attribute things to "speed", hence how you get tards like this>>14487477

I'm really starting to believe that there really is a mind virus among the populace that causes them to think in such erroneous ways

>>14488855
>Perhaps this is "the speed of light", but as we know that's not constant and dependent on the medium.


Thank you its the only logical way one can explain why light can go through an object slow down and then speed up again once its out of said object. It only makes sense if light isn't a little particle or photon thats moving but instead the specific rate of rarefaction and compression of a medium. Much like when you hear sound coming in from another room there aren't little sound particles going through the walls and coming out the other side.

>>14488880
>Pretty much this sadly most retards can't comprehend this and attribute things to "speed", hence how you get tards like this>>14487477 (You)
Fuck off, retard. It's not the first time you add nothing with your terminological sophistry.

A wave is a type of ordered motion of the particles that constitute a medium. The effect exists at a point x at time t and then exists at point y at time t', therefore the speed of propagation (how far along am I expected to find the same effect of patterned motion due to the causal chain of ongoing reactions I know are happening at a certain point after a given time) of the patterned motion is (y-x)/(t'-t).
The fact that the particles of the medium can end up having zero net motion doesn't factor in at all, because you have enough data (fundamental quantities) attributable to the pattern of motion, to also attribute a speed (derived quantity) to the effect. If you reject this, then you also reject that it can have position, therefore you reject that it can tracked and described at all, which is as asinine as thinking that "waves" can be sustained by no material medium or that they can just exist.

Call it however you want, its units are m/s.

And by the way, part of what makes relativity so retarded, is the fact that they don't understand that a derived quantity like speed cannot be more fundamental than the quantities that comprise it (space, time; or rather distance, duration), but that's not the only logical error of that type they do, since claiming that waves can exist without a medium is to deprive them of their cause all the same.
Your error of rejecting that waves have a speed altogether is the converse. You reject that they can be attributed a speed, and fail to realize that because they can be attributed position in time, you must also be able to derive a value to call a speed. Speed of propagation.

>>14488855
>>14488871
All of the above (>>14488981) without the name calling because you've been more respectful.
It's arguing semantics, and having a "speed" doesn't imply that waves are a "thing" separate from their medium, or that they are the medium, or that they aren't "of" the medium, unless you want to preclude yourself from being able to make distinctions altogether, nor does it imply that the medium has net motion (but it implies some motion), or that the medium has to travel with the wave or as the wave (repeating the same points).

>>14479101
he was genuinely mentally ill
a brilliant engineer, but a bona fide schizo on top of it
he was keeping pigeons - the true flying rats, unlike bats
that's all you need to know

>>14488981
Waves don't have speed retard

>>14479105

>>14488992
Pigeons make better company then 90% of New Yorkers, and cleaner than most of them too

>>14489003
Great argument faggot.

>>14489008
I won't dispute that

>>14489009
Sorry tard i'm not going to write a paragraph explaining something to someone to retarded to understand it

>>14489066
You're arguing not from concepts but from words. You don't like that I call a difference of position over a difference of time a speed because it's attributed to a pattern of motion, and you think "yeah but then it looks like it's an actual material thing!"
No, you moron. You're as retarded as relativists, when they say "noo it's not the aether, it's the spacetime/the quantum vacuum!! use my preferred pronouns you bigot!!"
You probably don't even have the reading comprehension to understand my description of what a wave "is", you simply heard someone somewhere say "yeah waves aren't objects they're just motions so they don't have speed" and you agreed, and from then on you've been posting "waves dont have motion retard lolol" with no actual understanding like the retard that you are. Which, again, is the same thing that relativists do, btw. Retardation is not their prerogative.
Kys tard.

>>14488985
It's arguing semantics, and having a "speed" doesn't imply that waves are a "thing" separate from their medium,
So "what" is "traveling" then? "It" is "already there".

>It's arguing semantics
>and having a "speed" doesn't imply that waves are a "thing" separate from their medium, or that they are the medium, or that they aren't "of" the medium
But all of that is really important to know, it's the foundation of what's being discussed. By referring to it as something that has a constant speed, you feed the psychosis that it...is that when it really isn't. It acts like a limitation and it is nothing other than a reified imagination.

>nor does it imply that the medium has net motion (but it implies some motion)
Exactly. And if it doesn't move and actually impedes motion then what? How can you say that's traveling? It prevents "traveling" in the conventional sense.

>>14489009
It's like saying a shadow has a speed. Okay great you measure privation and called it something that has a speed, but it means nothing because it doesn't exist. The information is useless.

>>14488992
>a brilliant engineer, but a bona fide schizo on top of it
They often make the best geniuses.

>>14479101
He didn't know it was going to get mountains of evidence backing it up, if he were alive today he would 100% accept that Relativity is true.

>>14489138
>It's like saying a shadow has a speed. Okay great you measure privation and called it something that has a speed, but it means nothing because it doesn't exist. The information is useless.

Fucking thank you, god its so nice to see there are people on here who aren't retards

>>14489167
You're fucking joking right?

>>14489556
you're replying to a jew, they don't have a sense of humor, but they often tell such ridiculous lies that it seems like they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-woH_sI-cg

>>14489577
I used to not hate kikes until I realized the ALWAYS are the ones curtailing humanities (white people's) advancement, Kikestein and the kike that propped him up retarded humanities understanding of the universe, Sarnoff and his kike cohorts fucked over countless of inventors who could've had us be far further along than we are, Rothschilds alone ensure that we'll never have means of having a true alternative to energy sources that have us dependent on the kikes that run things
(fusion should've long been a thing by now, especially with Farnsworth)

>>14489987

>>14489987
>fusion should've long been a thing by now
Fusion will never be a thing.

>>14479101
I bet dis nigga would have loved the Pigeon dating simulator.

>>14480904
Uppercase P means total momentum

>>14491061
Thats what the Kikes would have you believe, instead they have you dumping tax money into those retarded over sized Tokamak

>>14479101
Because the relativity discarded the medium used to propagate the vawes, making a gravitation an instantaneous "field", then backtracking on "gravitational vawes", propagating in ... well… nothing.
Tesla viscerally hated the nonsense.

>>14479342
>If you and a friend on the same latitude started walking north in a straight line you would meet at the north pole. You path was parallel yet you still met somewhere. Was that caused by some invisible universal force or the surface geometry?
Contradiction: if your two paths meet, then, by definition, your paths weren't parallel.

Dunning-Kruger Effect the thread.

>>14492665
Thats in a euclidean plane lol.

>>14479333
>relativity isn't a sufficient explanation of gravity, doesn't mean that satellites would crash into our houses.
It does mean that because we use relativity's equations to guide the satellites. Declaring it "insufficient" is kind of arbitrary given that it's much more accurate than Newtonian physics which was already pretty damn good.

>>14479330
>over the "inferred fact" that "space curves"
It's not inferred, it's observable as gravitational lensing.

>>14492683
...no? parallelism doesn't suddenly become something different just because of the geometry system, parallel lines never meet

>>14492665
Parallelism and intersection are two different concepts.
Only pseuds who didn't make it past the 5th century B.C. Who still fail to understand, visualize, and model with ease

good fucking gracious this thread is trash

>>14492716
If two lines are both at right angles from a third they will be parallel, but only on a flat surface. On a curved surface they will meet. Every longitude is at right angles from the equator, but as you move towards a pole the angle it makes with the latitudes change. You can take a globe and figure it out analytically if you aren't convinced.

>>14492734
A line on a curved surface cannot be a straight line.
You can draw a line that follows the curve, but it won't be a straight line. By virtue of following a curve, it will be curved. To call that a straight line would be equivocation.
Yes, I understand the basis of non-Euclidean geometry, it's not a hard concept.
The point is that the curvature came from the geometry of the surface, so by presupposing the surface, you presuppose the curve. The curve of the surface exists relative to a straight line in some flat space, without which you wouldn't be able to measure the curve. Cross-check with your preferred definition of manifold.

>>14492712
You observe a phenomenon, you infer by theoretical assumptions its causes.
You observed that light curves near massive objects. Newton made the same prediction for his corpuscular light and his space didn't curve. You claim GR gives a better prediction.
Assume GR's mathematics does give a better prediction, then GR's mathematics can also be interpreted as the pressure of a medium (>>14479754), therefore light bends due to the pressure differential around massive objects.
Where did space curve?

>>14492789
"straightness" isn't a necessary condition for parallelism among two lines, Obeying Euclid's 5th postulate is. If you can draw two two lines, regardless of their curvature to be at right angles to some arbitrary line, they are parallel at that point. If the surface is flat, they will stay parallel at all points, but on a non-Euclidean surface they will meet, and will only be locally parallel at the line where they were at right angles.

>>14492803
>let me just redefine space-time as ether and then demand every one call it that to stroke my ego.
>let me wear a dress and grow out my hair and demand everyone refer to me as she/her to stroke my ego.

>>14479101
The theory of relativity is a Jewish trick.
The Jews figured out a long time ago that conceptions about physical reality inexorably lead to corresponding conceptions about moral reality even though it may be a complete non sequitur.
The theory of relativity, thus understood, was an attempt to promote the outrageous moral theory of moral relativism.

>>14479521
mercury's orbit
gravitational lensing
gravitational waves

>>14479105
fpbp
/thread

>>14492830
>let me just redefine ether as spacetime and then demand every one call it that to stroke my ego.
Fixed to be historically accurate. Einstein stole everything from Lorentz, Poincaré, Hilbert, his only contribution: LE SPACETIMERINO IS HECKIN COOOOORVING!!!!!

Either that, or the idea of spacetime finally vindicates the flat earthers:
>>14479448
If you deny this you're a relativity denying schizo.

>>14492821
>"straightness" isn't a necessary condition for parallelism among two lines,
Sure but the conversation started with
>>14492665
>>If you and a friend on the same latitude started walking north in a straight line you would meet at the north pole. You path was parallel yet you still met somewhere. Was that caused by some invisible universal force or the surface geometry?
>Contradiction: if your two paths meet, then, by definition, your paths weren't parallel.
The guy was wrong saying your paths weren't "parallel", but he's still right that there's a contradiction. "If you and a friend walked in a straight line, you would meet at the north pole. Your paths were parallel." Therefore either the paths were not parallel, or the paths were not straight. The paths were not straight.
Given that straightness is primitive and curvedness is dependent on straightness, it's not hard to imagine that one would want to call parallelism in Euclidean geometry "true parallelism", and parallelism in curved geometry "pseudoparallelism" or something.
You can challenge the usefulness of such definitions, the point is that curved geometry depends on straight geometry to exist (by definition), so it makes no sense to say that "space is curved" in a vacuum.

>>14493577
Newton stole calculus from Leibnitz but no one seems to hold him to the same standard.

>>If you and a friend on the same latitude started walking north in a straight line you would meet at the north pole. You path was parallel yet you still met somewhere. Was that caused by some invisible universal force or the surface geometry?
>Contradiction: if your two paths meet, then, by definition, your paths weren't parallel.

Idk maybe he has a limited vocab or maybe he doesn't know the mathematical definition of parallelism but straightness(i.e having an infinite radius of curvature) has nothing to do with parallelism( obeying Euclid's 5th postulate)
Concentric Circles are not straight but they are always parallel.

2/2
>>14493577
>Given that straightness is primitive and curvedness is dependent on straightness, it's not hard to imagine that one would want to call parallelism in Euclidean geometry "true parallelism", and parallelism in curved geometry "pseudoparallelism" or something.
>You can challenge the usefulness of such definitions, the point is that curved geometry depends on straight geometry to exist (by definition), so it makes no sense to say that "space is curved" in a vacuum.

You got it backwards. Euclidean Geometry is a subset of Geometry as a whole where the basis are static and orthogonal. We can have non-static orthogonal bases like with a spherical co-ordinate system or ones that throw out both orthogonality and stasis of co-ordinates like with hyperbolic co-ordinates.

>>14493586
>Newton stole calculus from Leibnitz but no one seems to hold him to the same standard.
Because at least Newton was not content with calling gravity a miraculum perpettum due to "the geometry of spacetime", but made no hypotheses on its cause. Einstein, on the other hand, killed mechanism, and physics with it, on a faulty philosophical basis (Lorentz contraction was and always will be enough to explain the experiments). Thanks for the developments on Brownian motion, I guess?

>Idk maybe he has a limited vocab or maybe he doesn't know the mathematical definition of parallelism
I already addressed this point. He should have concluded not straight.

>>14493595
>You got it backwards. Euclidean Geometry is a subset of Geometry
>>14492789
>The point is that the curvature came from the geometry of the surface, so by presupposing the surface, you presuppose the curve. The curve of the surface exists relative to a straight line in some flat space, without which you wouldn't be able to measure the curve. Cross-check with your preferred definition of manifold.
Euclidean geometry is a subset of "geometry" only in the sense that non-Euclidean geometries are tumors growing out of Euclidean geometry. Without Euclidean geometry, there can be no tumors.

>>14493586
(also you're right about concentric circles, and that's a miss on my part for giving too much credit to the guy without thinking, but overall, it is irrelevant to the wider discussion)

>>14485214
>t. estrogen

>>14493598
>Euclidean geometry is a subset of "geometry" only in the sense that non-Euclidean geometries are tumors growing out of Euclidean geometry. Without Euclidean geometry, there can be no tumors.

You do realise there's no such thing as a straight edge, we have to 3d print the object with a suitable plastic and even then it warps with temperature fluctuations and looks like a furry costume at microscopic levels. Its really dumb and reductionist to think geometry for flat surfaces would be good at describing a reality thats anything but that.
>>14493598
>gravity a miraculum perpetuum due to "the geometry of spacetime"
Have you actually studied this rigorously before making this claim? Like down to the math and not some article or a philosopher's essay on the matter? Its not a miracle that occurs spontaneously. The energy-momentum tensor which distorts space time and constrains objects to specific trajectories gets its energy and momentum due to the particles matter is made of being accelerated by other force fields. This is why we have yet to find a particle associated with the force where as every other force has atleast one.

>>14493644
dubs of truth.

>>14493644
>You do realise there's no such thing as a straight edge
There's also no such thing as a perfect curve, so I'm not sure what we're arguing anymore.
The definition of an idealized curved space depends on the concept of idealized straight space.
Now you retreat in the physical world. Shall I kick you back into the world of ideas by saying, "you do realize that everything is ultimately made of matter, so the so-called curvature of space must be the curvature of some material aether?", so that you can tell me how it's due to a pseudo-Riemannian manifold that certainly has its own independent existence (unlike the straight edge, I guess!), so that I can point out again that, by definition, it also depends on an underlying Euclidean space?
Whether you want me to say it in the language of mathematics or of the real world, the conclusion is the same.

>Have you actually studied this rigorously before making this claim? Like down to the math and not some article or a philosopher's essay on the matter?
Do you have a source for your thoughts? Independent thinking is extremely dangerous to our ecclesiastical order.
Sorry, officer, I appear not to have my thought loicense on me.
>Its not a miracle that occurs spontaneously. The energy-momentum tensor which distorts space time and constrains objects to specific trajectories gets its energy and momentum due to the particles matter is made of being accelerated by other force fields. This is why we have yet to find a particle associated with the force where as every other force has atleast one.
The number 4 causes me to have 4 apples.

>>14493690
>There's also no such thing as a perfect curve, so I'm not sure what we're arguing anymore.
Your whole argument falls flat because differential geometry is not based on "idealised" curves. Its based on what we do with literally all of calculus, taking a small piece of any arbitrary curve, finding some measure of its length or other properties. Friedrich Gauss ( non-jew btw, since anything a Jew says is automatically a lie for some reason) came up with the field when he realised he couldn't survey land properly because land isnt rectangles and triangles or perfect functions so basic geometry and calculus doesn't work.

>Now you retreat in the physical world. Shall I kick you back into the world of ideas by saying, "you do realize that everything is ultimately made of matter, so the so-called curvature of space must be the curvature of some material aether?"

If space time was a a material like aether was hypothesised to be we would have found how its quantitized like every other material. There's been no evidence so far, if we do find it people will go back to calling it aether. As a matter of fact, you keep asserting its aether over anything else that light propagates through despite the fact that we can't find any stationary aether we move relative to. The Michelson Morley Experiment checked for changes in the speed of light relative to aether and found none in any orientation or speed.

1/2

>>14493729
On top of this, your rejection of it is based on treating space -time like a substance which is not what any of the mathematic treats it like. Its a co-ordinate system, and like every other co-ordinate system its an abstract measuring system. It appears long before relativity in classical mechanics with the wave differential equation. If we treat the differential operators in the equation as a single operator, it implies there is an imaginary time axis along side the usual three space co-ordinates. If we extend the rest of calculus we the ability to mathematically explain Electrodynamics. General Relativity was basically asking, well, gravity is also an inverse square force, does it behave like Electro-Magnetic forces, which are also inverse square?

>>14493729
>>14493735
I don't care about who is a jew.

The definition of manifold depends on the existence of Euclidean space.
The land Gauss wanted to survey existed in its geometry independent of his mathematics.
Now you seem to be going towards a stance that mathematics is only a description of nature.
Within that framework, the point is that the pseudo-Riemannian manifold of spacetime describes something material that sits in the (flat, mathematical, absolute, necessary by definition of manifold) Euclidean space of Newton.

>If space time was a a material like aether was hypothesised to be we would have found how its quantitized like every other material.
As if relativists don't talk all the time about Planck length this, Planck time that?

There are many epiphenomena of the aether that point to its existence without the need to directly discover its constituents.
The physical existence of the vector potential, demonstrated by the Aharonov-Bohm effect, is predicted by aether theory since Maxwell as the velocity field of the aether. Its physicality is arbitrary in spacetime physics.
Aether better explains the parallels between the hydrodynamic Navier-Stokes equations and the electrodynamic Maxwell equations. As predicted by aether theory since forever. It is an arbitrary resemblance in spacetime physics.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9602081.pdf
That gravity was caused by pressure differentials in aether has been a hypothesis since the times of Newton. Newton himself raised the same hypothesis, although he remained agnostic on the matter.
The mathematics of GR, which are verified by experiment, is consistent with the prediction, and is validated by a natural model of GR in which the metric tensor IS the pressure tensor of the aether (>>14479754). According to spacetime physics, the metric tensor has arbitrary existence.

>>14493729
Also,
>As a matter of fact, you keep asserting its aether over anything else that light propagates through despite the fact that we can't find any stationary aether we move relative to.
The frame in which the CMBR is isotropic gives a universal frame of reference.
>The Michelson Morley Experiment checked for changes in the speed of light relative to aether and found none in any orientation or speed.
The Lorentz contraction, which is included in special relativity, explains the Michelson-Morley experiment.

>>14493735
>It appears long before relativity in classical mechanics with the wave differential equation. If we treat the differential operators in the equation as a single operator, it implies there is an imaginary time axis along side the usual three space co-ordinates
The material derivative is used to describe all sorts of materials. The wave equation appears in all sorts of materials.
By saying this, you are admitting that spacetime can be emergent, as a description of the physical properties of some material medium: the aether.

>>14487285
>and those that haven't elaborated on how their systems work is because it's classified
The article elaborates on how the system works vis a via relativity. That doesn't answer my question. How is it not right?

>>14493833
>yet another abstract mathematical construct is a "Material" now

Ah yes, the material derivative, how much does it weigh? Whats it's charge'?

Saying Space-time is a description of some material medium is like saying +,-,/,* are descriptions of material mediums. We tried measuring lengths on a flat cartesian system, an abstract measuring system, it didn't work.

We extended it to other curved co-ordinate systems, it still wasn't enough to explain electromagnetism. We started treating time as a complex component to space, all of a sudden we can explain retarded potentials for point charges. Its a co-ordinate system, like the spherical, cylindrical or bi-polar system is. Saying it doesn't exist is absurd because it wasn't meant to exist. Its a mathematical construct. Can you please confirm you have done the math to make the claims you are making? I just need to know you have studied basic differential geometry. If you can prove the inner product of the covariant and contravariant position vector in an oblique co-ordinate system adds upto x^2+y^2 using trignometry I'll believe what you say has some ground.

>>14493867
Your claim
>It appears long before relativity in classical mechanics with the wave differential equation.
This is in defense of the existence of "4d spacetime", because otherwise we are not arguing about anything at all.

My response
>The same mathematical structure that justifies "4d spacetime", is the same structure that appears naturally in material media.
>Because of that, we can imagine that "spacetime" is an emergent property of material media, i.e. we can assign a similar "spacetime" to any medium whatsoever.
>That, exactly in the same way "non-Euclidean geometries" are emergent of objects embedded in the (presumed by definition of manifold) flat Euclidean space.
>Therefore, we are led to think that "spacetime" emerges as the description of a material medium embedded in the mathematical, absolute, featureless, flat Euclidean space of Newton.
This being a (mathematical) prediction.

We test the prediction mathematically, and find that, indeed,
>the metric tensor of GR can be described as materially arising from the pressure tensor of a material medium
>the vector potential can be described as materially arising from the velocity field of the same medium
>this predicts the physical existence of the vector potential, and by empirical experimentation (now taking ourselves outside of the realm of mathematics), we observe that our prediction matches our experience (Aharonov-Bohm experiment)

Therefore, we conclude that
>spacetime is the emergent manifold of deformations of a material medium that we may call aether, whose underlying Euclidean space represents the mathematical, absolute, featureless, flat space and time of Newton.

>>14493110
>mercury's orbit
Already accounted for by classical precession.

>gravitational lensing
Photons have mass, which affects their trajectories around celestial bodies according to Newtonian mechanics. General relativity can be shown to be mathematically reducible to the laws of refraction.

>gravitational waves
Aetherial peturbations.

>>14493867
>Can you please confirm you have done the math to make the claims you are making?
As I said, you can look up your preferred definition of a manifold, to see that it is dependent on the existence of Euclidean space.
Therefore, a manifold could be described as extra structure on an Euclidean space.
Claiming that a manifold in a Euclidean space is in any way prior to the Euclidean space itself, is like claiming that vector spaces are generalizations of fields, because any field has the structure of a vector space over itself. It's a trivial statement at best, because the vector space is additional structure over the very field we're talking about, and misleading at worst, because it implies that we could do away with fields and only keep the "generalization".

>>14493919
>is the same structure that appears naturally in material media.
>Because of that, we can imagine that "spacetime" is an emergent property of material media
It appears anywhere you use it to measure a tensor, not just media. You can describe the domain of any function that takes 4 inputs (x,y,z,w) as a 4 dimensional tensor space space. The definition of space-time is just a co-ordinate system by which we can measure tensors( scalars, vectors, matrices) in a 4-D tensor space, with three space and a time co-ordinate. This definition has nothing to do with matter. There's more than one co-ordinate system to do it and space- time is just one of them. This is like saying a watch can only exist on your wrists and not on a table or in space.

>That, exactly in the same way "non-Euclidean geometries" are emergent of objects embedded in the (presumed by definition of manifold) flat Euclidean space.
>presumed definition of manifold
Demonstrably false and contradictory, the definition of a manifold in a non-euclidean topological space that can be treated as euclidean for an infinitessimally small region around any arbitrary point on the manifold. This is again the exact thing we do when we try to find the derivative or integral of a curve. This doesn't make the curve as a whole a straight line, that would be like saying the earth is flat because you're too small to see it's curvature.

>We test the prediction mathematically, and find that, indeed,
>spacetime is the emergent manifold of deformations of a material medium that we may call aether, whose underlying Euclidean space represents the mathematical, absolute, featureless, flat space and time of Newton.

if such a material exists, we would have found how its quantitized (i.e. the "particles" its made of). Without that piece of evidence to back it up your argument is "begging the question". Literally all of your premises assume an aether exists
>"materially arising"

1/2

>>14493989
>You can describe the domain of any function that takes 4 inputs (x,y,z,w) as a 4 dimensional tensor space space.
Yes. So
>We started treating time as a complex component to space, all of a sudden we can explain retarded potentials for point charges.
is nothing special to say.

>This definition has nothing to do with matter.
A priori, yes. But "spacetime" is used to describe something physical, therefore we are led to compare it to other physical things that are described by the same mathematics.
Because, by your own definitions, mathematics has nothing to do with matter, we can safely dismiss the conception of spacetime as "space and time curving" as a mere fiction of the mind.
We look at the real world, and we find that:
>The same mathematical structure that justifies "4d spacetime", is the same structure that appears naturally in material media.
>Because of that, we can imagine that "spacetime" is an emergent property of material media, i.e. we can assign a similar "spacetime" to any medium whatsoever.
>That, exactly in the same way "non-Euclidean geometries" are emergent of objects embedded in the (presumed by definition of manifold) flat Euclidean space.
>Therefore, we are led to think that "spacetime" emerges as the description of a material medium embedded in the mathematical, absolute, featureless, flat Euclidean space of Newton.

By this,we make some predictions on how we *should* be able to describe nature:
>the metric tensor of GR can be described as materially arising from the pressure tensor of a material medium
>the vector potential can be described as materially arising from the velocity field of the same medium

And this leads to some natural *physical*, *material* predictions,
>this predicts the physical existence of the vector potential, and by empirical experimentation (now taking ourselves outside of the realm of mathematics)
which are validated since
>we observe that our prediction matches our experience (Aharonov-Bohm experiment)

>>14493989
Your own words:
>the definition of a manifold in a non-euclidean topological space that can be treated as euclidean for an infinitessimally small region around any arbitrary point on the manifold.
>topological space that can be treated as euclidean
The definition of manifolds presumes the existence of Euclidean space.

My claim (restated multiple times):

>The point is that the curvature came from the geometry of the surface, so by presupposing the surface, you presuppose the curve. The curve of the surface exists relative to a straight line in some flat space, without which you wouldn't be able to measure the curve. Cross-check with your preferred definition of manifold.
>The definition of manifold depends on the existence of Euclidean space.
>As I said, you can look up your preferred definition of a manifold, to see that it is dependent on the existence of Euclidean space. Therefore, a manifold could be described as extra structure on an Euclidean space.

Therefore
>Demonstrably false and contradictory
>This doesn't make the curve as a whole a straight line
Because the second statement does not follow from anything I've said, the first statement is wrong, because you simply (whether purposefully by grasping at straws and tripping over yourself or by pure inability) misunderstand what I'm saying.

>if such a material exists, we would have found how its quantitized
>>14493815
>As if relativists don't talk all the time about Planck length this, Planck time that?
>There are many epiphenomena of the aether that point to its existence without the need to directly discover its constituents.
etc.

>>14493933
> existence of Euclidean space.
Neither exist. They are mathematical constructs we use to measure and describe relationships(i.e.functions) between variables. The definition of Manifold doesn't depend on Euclidean space. Our ability to do math on it does. We are stuck with having to pick a small part of a curved object and find its area/gradient/volume because of Newtonian Calculus is defined that way. If you wen't with Archimedian calculus instead( method of exhaustion, i.e. using convergent infinite series to approximate areas) the necessity for taking limits over infinitessimally small Euclidean space vanishes, and you'd still end up with the same problem of your co-ordinate system changing due to energy-momentum and having to adjust how you measure distances and time in it, because linear transformations apply to both euclidean and non-euclidean spaces.

Your trying to make an argument in topology using boolean logic,which doesn't have the same operations. That too really bad ones when you assume the conclusion to your argument is true in the premise( i.e.begging the question) which doesn't have the same operations.

This is why I asked you to demonstrate to me you know basic differential geometry. Every premise you give me should be an equation involving tensors, not words.

>>14493989
P.S.
>This doesn't make the curve as a whole a straight line, that would be like saying the earth is flat because you're too small to see it's curvature.
It doesn't make the curve straight, but it implies that there is a straight line to which the curvature of the curve can be compared.
To forget what the surface of Earth is curved relative to, is to believe in the world I described in >>14479448

>By the surface geometry, of course. You see, the Earth is actually just like a flat plane, but due the geometry of space, interesting and unexpected things happen, like two parallel lines eventually meeting. Other consequences of the curved geometry of space, that explains why two parallel lines eventually meet on the spaceplane, is that longitudinal space ITSELF contracts and expands as a function of altitude -- making it so that as you dig down the Earth, space contracts, and as you go up in the sky, space expands. This is how scientists explain how there can be so much room in the sky for the stars.
>The theory also predicts that as you dig down the Earth, you should encounter a space singularity, where the space is 0 and therefore no motion can occur, and that if you were to somehow dig even deeper than that, you would find yourself in an antiworld, a world that is just like ours but upside down. If you were to dig straight down from here, you'd end up in anti-Australia, were up is down and down is up, and, incredible to say, space contracts and expands as a function depth!

>Of course this is retarded, because we know that
>>Was that caused by some invisible universal force
>IS the right cause (you are pushed onto the surface of the sphere by gravity, an 'invisible universal force', you idiot), and that
>>the surface geometry
>is a consequence of it.

>>14494020
>Neither exist.
Yeah.

>They are mathematical constructs we use to measure and describe relationships(i.e.functions) between variables.
Exactly. And the mathematical construct of spacetime is only related to the real world by the way it describes the properties of something materially existing, i.e. the aether, in the same way the wave equation is only relevant to ourselves by its ability to describe wave phenomena in material media.

>The definition of Manifold doesn't depend on Euclidean space.
This is mathematically wrong, as Euclidean spaces are necessary to define a manifold. As in, you literally need to relate a manifold to R^n for some n in order to define it, and that is the bulk of the definition.

>Our ability to do math on it does.
This is contradictory with the claim that mathematical structures do not exist.

>>14494020
>>14494035
>>Our ability to do math on it does.
>This is contradictory with the claim that mathematical structures do not exist.
To be more precise, if neither exists in a material sense, then we can temporarily borrow the term "exist" to mean "definable through mathematics", without any connotations of material existence.

Therefore, if the definition of manifold presumes the existence of Euclidean spaces, what is meant is that without having defined Euclidean spaces first, you cannot talk about manifolds, because they are an undefined notion, and an undefined notion has no existence in the above sense.

Thus, it makes no sense to say that the definition of manifold is independent of Euclidean spaces, when it is an undefined notion without them.

>>14494011
>The definition of manifolds presumes the existence of Euclidean space.
see>>14494020

>>The point is that the curvature came from the geometry of the surface, so by presupposing the surface, you presuppose the curve. The curve of the surface exists relative to a straight line in some flat space,
Blatantly false. Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of basic curvilinear geometry( this is'nt even differential geometry). Every curve is defined in terms of the radius of curvature as a function of the position. We are comparing it to circles, not straight lines and spherical geometry is non-euclidean.

>This is mathematically wrong, as Euclidean spaces are necessary to define a manifold. As in, you literally need to relate a manifold to R^n for some n in order to define it, and that is the bulk of the definition.
Nope. Your assuming the tensor space has to be defined by orthogonal basis like with euclidean space. It does not, the only reason
>topological space that can be treated as euclidean for an infinitessimally small region around any arbitrary point on the manifold
is a part of the definition is because Newtonian Calculus is built on Euclidean spaces. You can use non-Newtonian Calculus to do it and the need for a Euclidean Space becomes irrelevant.

Let me explain this to you with an analogy. You have a can with soup in it, you want to get to the soup. You can use a pocket knife to punch a hole in it and pry it open(i.e. Newtonian Calculus on a infinitessimally small region approximated to a Euclidean space), or you can use a can opener( Archimedian calculus or literally any other form of calculus).

>>14494071
>>The definition of manifolds presumes the existence of Euclidean space.
>see>>14494020
See >>14494035

>We are comparing it to circles,
Circles are embedded in Euclidean space.
At some point you're presuming a curve that presumes a straight line.

>You can use non-Newtonian Calculus to do it and the need for a Euclidean Space becomes irrelevant.
You can shuffle things around, but the requirements do not change.

>Let me explain this to you with an analogy. You have a can with soup in it, you want to get to the soup. You can use a pocket knife to punch a hole in it and pry it open(i.e. Newtonian Calculus on a infinitessimally small region approximated to a Euclidean space), or you can use a can opener( Archimedian calculus or literally any other form of calculus).
Let me explain this to you with an analogy.
You move north with your friend in a straight line. You meet at some point.
You can either infer that you live on the surface of a sphere that is embedded in a wider three-dimensional space, or you can have a psychosis together and believe that >>14494022 is the case.

>>14494051
>definition of manifold presumes the existence of Euclidean spaces
The definition of Newtonian calculus presumes that of Euclidean spaces in infinitesimally small spaces can approximate non-Euclidean spaces, ie if your non-Euclidean space is small enough, you can round it off to a Euclidean space, it doesn't presuppose a Euclidean space actually exists. You're breaking up curves into infinitesimally small straight lines and finding the slope of their secants to approximate its slope at any arbitrary point. You're breaking up the area under a curve into a series of infinitesimally small rectangles relative to a STRAIGHT line, the x axes. These can only exist in a Euclidean Space. Its not what defines a manifold. You can use the shape surface of a curved vase as a non-Euclidean topological space, ie Manifold. If we we're defining calculus operations on the surface using some other form of calculus defined on a non-Euclidean space it would still be a manifold.
>Circles are embedded in Euclidean space.
>At some point you're presuming a curve that presumes a straight line.
Spherical geometry is literally not Euclidean you stated that spherical geometry doesn't meet criteria for non-Euclidean space in the very same post
>Let me explain this to you with an analogy.
>You move north with your friend in a straight line. You meet at some point.
>You can shuffle things around, but the requirements do not change.
>You can either infer that you live on the surface of a sphere that is embedded in a wider three-dimensional space, or you can have a psychosis together and believe that >>14494022 is the case.
You're arguing from incredulity. You still haven't produced a single mathematical equation, you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of differential geometry. Study up on Archimedean Calculus, study up on differential geometry, show me your math. You are arguing from Boolean logic, which is not sufficient and on top of that you are arguing with fallacies. I'm out.

>>14494112
You keep talking about calculus, when in general not all manifolds are even differential.

Spherical geometry is non-Euclidean and embedded in three dimensional Euclidean space.

You keep asking for math and I repeatedly told you to look up the very definition of a manifold.

I'm not arguing from incredulity, but you're arguing from imbecility.

>>14493928
>Already accounted for by classical precession.
Show me where.

>Photons have mass, which affects their trajectories around celestial bodies according to Newtonian mechanics
Show me where.
>General relativity can be shown to be mathematically reducible to the laws of refraction.
In relation to what change of medium?

>Aetherial peturbations.
Show me the derivation of them.

>>14494409
Here's a paper attached on Mercury's precession: >>14481038

Relativity and refraction:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm

Regarding the last point, you don't "derive" aetherial peturbations any more than you derive gusts of wind on a beach.

>>14494579
>it's not actually accounted by classical mechanics and he instead claims it's an error in the measurement
Denial of evidence, check.

>Relativity and refraction:
>We may surely believe (in view of the magnitude of the detected deflection) that, in reality, refraction is not involved at all, and your effect alone has been observed. This is certainly one of the finest results that science has ever accomplished, and we may be very pleased about it.
Also wouldn't explain lensing near black holes since they cite the star's gases as the reason.


We may surely believe (in view of the magnitude of the detected deflection) that, in reality, refraction is not involved at all, and your effect alone has been observed. This is certainly one of the finest results that science has ever accomplished, and we may be very pleased about it.
>Regarding the last point, you don't "derive" aetherial peturbations any more than you derive gusts of wind on a beach.
Yes, you do, for both cases, it's called the differential equation for waves. At most what I'm getting from this is a case of "I don't like this interpretation of reality because I'm more comfortable with newtonian physics".

>>14494704
So, you ignored the part of the article where it derives the bending of light in a vacuum using Newtonian mechanics to obtain the same prediction as relativity, and instead just skipped to the bottom and pulled out a quote from Eddington. Are you a GPT-3?

>Yes, you do, for both cases, it's called the differential equation for waves.
So you're certain that gravitational waves are real and must exist, but ardently deny that there is any sort of medium (e.g., aether) through which these waves are traveling... that's your position?

>>14494772
>in a vacuum
You mean near a star with nice a nice atmosphere to serve as the different mendium?
>In any case, Lorentz’s letter also included a rough analysis of the amount of deflection that would be expected due to ordinary refraction in the gas surrounding the Sun. His calculations indicated that a suitably chosen gas density at the Sun’s surface could indeed produce a deflection on the order of 1″, but for any realistic density profile the effect would drop off very rapidly for rays passing just slightly further from the Sun. Thus the effect of refraction, if there was any, would be easily distinguishable from the relativistic effect.
Hence, not refraction.

If it's gravity altering the path, then it's not a difference of medium and thus it's not refraction.

>So you're certain that gravitational waves are real and must exist, but ardently deny that there is any sort of medium (e.g., aether) through which these waves are traveling... that's your position?
They travel through space-time as the medium on GR. Or they travel through quantum fields as the medium on QFT.

>>14494796
>If it's gravity altering the path, then it's not a difference of medium and thus it's not refraction.
What do you think gravity is? Have you actually given this a moment's thought?

>>14494817
Where is the difference in medium?

If it's newtonian gravity, there isn't any, the vaccum is just a vaccum. If it's GR you could imagine that a region with a different curvature is kind of like a different medium, so ironically, refraction is more applicable to GR than to Newtonian Gravity. If you say the it's local variations in the aether due to gravity, then that's just GR again with a different name.

Refraction is not the bending of light, it's the bending of light as it changes from one medium to another.

>>14494874
>Where is the difference in medium?
What do you think gravity IS?

>>14494941
Not a difference of mediums.

>>14495000
Yeah. It just coincidentally happens that light behaves exactly as if it is traveling through an aether medium.

>>14495000
>>14495023
And it just coincidentally happens that a celestial body would absorb some of this medium, creating an effect of attraction. And it just coincidentally happens that the geological evidence overwhelmingly supports an expanding Earth. All coincidental, surely.

>>14495023
>It just coincidentally happens that a pilot wave behaves the exact same as wave collapse
>It just coincidentally happens that many worlds behave the exact same as wave collapse

>behaves exactly as if it is traveling through an aether medium.
Like I said, another dressed up interpretation of GR.

"I don't like this interpretation of reality because I'm more comfortable with newtonian physics" so I dress spacetime up as aether where it behaves the exactly same but with a name I like."

>>14495039
Pilot wave is also aether.

Aether, unlike relativity, is compatible with quantum mechanics. Relativity should've been falsified with the EPR paradox first and Bell's theorem later.

>>14495060
But not the other 2.

>Aether, unlike relativity, is compatible with quantum mechanics.
Show me the paper the peer reviewed paper showing that, otherwise it isn't.

> Relativity should've been falsified with the EPR paradox first and Bell's theorem later.
>relativity behaves the exact same as the aether!
Since so far you only have managed to show relativity behaving the same as an aether then I guess that one goes too.
If I say spacetime is an aether what will you do? Say your aether is now an invalid theory?

>>14495076
>Show me the paper the peer reviewed paper showing that, otherwise it isn't.
Quantum hydrodynamics.
Unlike ad hoc relativity fuckery, the aether's mathematics writes itself out of your garbage.

>>14495119
>Quantum hydrodynamics.
Why do I suspect that if I open any article in it it's going to use standard relativity instead of aether?

>Unlike ad hoc relativity fuckery, the aether's mathematics writes itself out of your garbage.
What if I claim Spacetime is an aether?

>>14495128
It's gonna use Madelung's hydrodynamics equations, which are closely related to pilot wave theory. Hardly relativistic.

>What if I claim Spacetime is an aether?
Spacetime is the aether in tranny clothing as demonstrated many times ITT.
Einstein conceeded that point in 1920 as well.

>>14495145
>Spacetime is the aether in tranny clothing as demonstrated many times ITT.
So you agree that there is no problem and you're just butthurt about the name? Sorry, but that's just the way the dice fell historically. Spacetime is a better name anyways and GR math is more elegant.

>>14495160
Not the same, unless you consider geocentrism+epicycles the same as heliocentrism+elliptical orbits.
Spacetime slows down physics tremendously, because you can't describe the aether as what it is: a material fluid with material properties.
You are prevented from looking at macroscopic analogues because there's no reason that "spacetime" should be anything like, say, a fluid.
Incidentally, some of the best (actual) advancements in physics occurred from figuring out that relativistic schizomath could be rephrased as something hydrodynamical. In quantum mechanics, in general relativity, in electrodynamics, you name it.

>>14495160
>>14495194
Spacetime/GR also gets several big ideas seriously wrong. Eg, that there are no absolute reference frames in physics, and that FTL travel is impossible (both untrue). It's not just about the math.

>>14495277
There are no absolute frames of reference even in newtonian physics thanks to newtonian theory being classically relativistic.

>and that FTL travel is impossible (both untrue)
Have you seen anything travelling FTL? Then you can't conclude anything more than what the theories tell you.

>>14495348
>There are no absolute frames of reference even in newtonian physics thanks to newtonian theory being classically relativistic.
There are. Newtonian physics implies there must be a preferred frame of reference for a wave emission when the speed of the wave is independent of the speed of its source.

>Have you seen anything travelling FTL?
Sure. Aside from the fact that the gravitational force itself is highly superluminal, there are a variety of superluminal observations in cosmology which have not been satisfactorily resolved. V838 Monocerotis for example, was posted here a little while ago.

>>14495446
>Newtonian physics implies there must be a preferred frame of reference for a wave emission when the speed of the wave is independent of the speed of its source.
It doesn't.

That would violate gallilean relativity, and thus newtonian physics

>gravitational force itself is highly superluminal
It isn't according to experiments.

>>14495479
>That would violate gallilean relativity, and thus newtonian physics
No. Sound waves in the atmosphere don't violate Newtonian physics. Neither do light waves in the aether.

Regarding the speed of gravity, see the paper (attached).

>>14495565
>Sound waves in the atmosphere don't violate Newtonian physi
If you claim there is an absolute reference frame it violates newtonian physics automatically regardless of how you want to word it. That's all there is to it.
If you want to claim that sound waves in the atmosphere do not imply an absolute reference frame then that is a different argument.

>>14495565
>one contradicting fringe view
Don't care.

>>14495582
Well, I can't help you if you're not willing to help yourself.

>>14495601
That's how it works, for every fringe paper you can bring, there are a bllion more supporting GR.

And since GR is prettier than doppler garbage and refraction shit, I'd do the same thing lagrangian mechanics and hamiltonian mechanics do to newtonian mechanics and treat it like that regardless.

>>14495605
>And since GR is prettier than doppler garbage and refraction shit,
Ah yes, Occam's old adage, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter pulchritudinem.

>>14495621
Pretty theory > Ugly theory. Same thing with women. All your fringe schizo ideas could come out to be solid tomorrow, and we'd still find away to use the more elegant theory anyways, just like with newton and quantum mechanics even though pilot wave theory is equivalent to it.

>>14495605
>fringe paper
>>14495628
>fringe schizo ideas

>>14495750
My reasoning is GR is prettier therefore I will use it over ugly theories that use garbage like doppler crap and fresnel absolutely disgusting refraction. I will reformulate the any theory you come up with back to GR.

>>14495628
>All your fringe schizo ideas could come out to be solid tomorrow, and we'd still find away to use the more elegant theory anyways
If no amount of rational discourse can persuade you to change your position, then what you are practicing is not science, but religion.

>>14495773
Physics isn't reality. If my model works mathematically, I can use whatever I want.

>>14495787
>Physics isn't reality.
It would be, if physicists hadn't dispensed with reality starting over a century ago.
>If my model works mathematically, I can use whatever I want.
Physics isn't just model-building; it's part of natural philosophy, a historical fact that unfortunately seems to be forgotten. Believing that you are engaged in nothing more than model building is antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry, which compels us to seek an UNDERSTANDING of natural laws. Furthermore, if a genuine understanding of the principles behind the models is non-existent (as is currently the case), the models will inevitably fail to yield correct predictions--which we've seen in practice countless times already.

>>14495811
>It would be, if physicists hadn't dispensed with reality starting over a century ago.
You can never prove what something is 100%. If 2 theories produce identical results, it is impossible to decide which one is more correct.

>Believing that you are engaged in nothing more than model building is antithetical to the spirit of scientific inquiry, which compels us to seek an UNDERSTANDING of natural laws. Furthermore, if a genuine understanding of the principles behind the models is non-existent (as is currently the case), the models will inevitably fail to yield correct predictions--which we've seen in practice countless times already.
Scientific inquiry is model building with predictions. As long as there isn't a competing theory, we can say that something works somewhat like that up to our current understanding. If we have 2 identical theories, then we start saying that it's either this or that or some mix of both until one proves superior if one is proved superior. That is the most understanding we can hope to achieve of the natural laws. We can never know if it really works like that regardless of how good our models are.

If something doesn't match then the model is incomplete but that is the best we have so far.
Besides that, we want our models to be wrong so we can improve them.

>>14481088
200 replies later and this still hasn't been falsified.

>>14485145
Until something better comes along that's the best model we have. Making good predictions is the only reasonable measuring stick for a good model.

last for relativity is for jews and niggers