[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 6 KB, 136x370, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15181680 No.15181680 [Reply] [Original]

Flat Earthers believe gravity is a pushing force.

Which makes more sense?

Some Flat Earthers say it's the atmospheric pressure that does the pushing, but I believe
the best explanation I heard from a geophysicist PhD and Flat Earther is that it's particles coming from the stars and the plasma itself that are on the dome create a pressure that pushes things down (this resembles this theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation )

interestingly I heard there is even an experiment that supports that position where scientists managed to simulate gravity using waves that push things.

>> No.15181711

>>15181680
Neither is true, it's not a force. The effects are caused by spacetime curvature.

>> No.15181725

>>15181680
Gravity is caused by mass bending space. Like a morbidly obese man sitting on the couch, when he sits down all the onion rings and twinkies surrounding him start sliding along the couch towards him, towards the mass. If he was instead severely anorexic then he would have less mass and the couch would not bend and he would have to reach further to get his onion rings

>> No.15181740

>>15181711
>>15181725
What is "spacetime" made out of? Can you describe and/or detect its structure empirically?

>> No.15181743

>>15181740
What is "energy" made out of? Can you describe and/or detect its structure empirically? What about forces? You sound literally retarded. The empirical validation of the constructs that make up a physical model is that it makes correct predictions.

>> No.15181746

>>15181743
What you're talking about isn't science, it's a religion. If I wanted to know about that I would have asked if you had faith in gravity or whatever.

>> No.15181747

>>15181746
So what is "energy" made out of? Or is that not a valid physical concept, either?

>> No.15181751

>>15181747
Energy isn't "made out of" anything. It's a quantitative property of matter. Matter is made of things. They're called subatomic particles.

>> No.15181754

>>15181751
>Energy isn't "made out of" anything.
Then what you're talking about isn't science, it's a religion. :^)

>> No.15181756

>>15181754
You are genuinely too stupid to understand why I'm making fun of you. It's embarrassing to watch you flail around like this.

>> No.15181758

>>15181756
Uh oh, looks like I broke the bot and now it's regurgitating from its tweet database.

>> No.15181760

>>15181758
Sadly for you I'm not a bot. I'm a /sci/ poster watching you have a schizophrenic meltdown on the internet.
Still, I'll forgive you if you can give an answer to what spacetime is made out of. Some sort of material, perhaps? A particle, or a field that can be perturbed and examined by experiments? It should be quite easy to find so I'll wait a little while.

>> No.15181764

>>15181760
>spacetime is invalid b-b-because what is it heckin' made of, huh?
>energy is not made out of anything but it's okay b-b-b-because
The concept of energy is used to model constraints on the behavior of matter. The concept of spacetime is used to do the same.

>> No.15181767

>>15181764
Energy is a quality of matter. Spacetime is a quality of ______. Fill in the blank to complete your own analogy.

>> No.15181775

>>15181711
>The effects are caused by spacetime curvature
And I suppose this has been proved using the scientific method? What was the experiment? How do you isolate "spacetime curvature" as a variable?

>> No.15181779

>>15181767
>Energy is a quality of matter
That's a dumb thing to say, but if we're gonna talk like that, then spacetime is also a "quality of matter" in the exact same way.

>> No.15181784

>>15181779
You're basically arguing for the density = gravity theory by saying that, though I know it's unintentional.
I'd like you to argue from what you actually believe. What is spacetime made out of? If it has curvature then it's physical. It can be detected and experimented on empirically.

>> No.15181786

>>15181784
>What is spacetime made out of?
Made the bot loop. Done. Seeya.

>> No.15181787

>>15181784
>It can be detected and experimented on empirically.
How do you detect curvature of the spacetime?

>> No.15181793

>>15181787
>How do you detect curvature of the spacetime?
I'm asking him, since he seems so sure of himself.

>> No.15181800
File: 27 KB, 460x305, 1673545852191972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15181800

>>15181740
is this "spacetime" in the room with us?

>> No.15181804
File: 85 KB, 903x1024, 1673545599044759m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15181804

>>15181725
so that force can go from 0 to infinite? Could it go negative and repell mass?

>> No.15181809

>>15181711
>The effects are caused by spacetime curvature.
i never understood this, what exactly is "spacetime" curving into? there has to be empty space underneath "spacetime" in order for it to be able to deform. Try getting a curvature on a piece of clothe on top of a table, you can't, there has to be open space underneath

>> No.15181812

>>15181809
that's a bad argument, curvature is an intrinsic property. there's no need to bend "into something".
that being said, gravity is a complete bullshit and there's no such thing as ""spacetime curvature"".

>> No.15181818

>>15181809
>i never understood this, what exactly is "spacetime" curving into?
Nothing. What is meant is that space and time are not orthogonal and independent in the mathematics that govern motion.

>> No.15181826

>>15181800
No because it doesn't exist.

>> No.15181830

>>15181725
>Gravity is caused by mass bending space. Like a morbidly obese man sitting on the couch, when he sits down all the onion rings and twinkies surrounding him start sliding along the couch towards him, towards the mass.
The only reason this happens is because there is space underneath the sofa to allow it to deform

Spacetime is literally the space itself, how can it bend?:

>> No.15181833

>>15181830
Well, you see, space has mass. When space itself has mass, that massive amount of space can actually bend, and so that bending of space/time creates a warp effect on light rays, making them appear to curve. And that is how spacetime can bend. There's much more to it than that, of course, but I think that's the gist of it.

>> No.15181835

Another schizo thread where idiots can't tell the difference between scientific LAWS and scientific MODELS to explain those laws.

The LAW of gravity is sacred. All mass attracts all mass. Period. It's true, forever and always. It's how nature operates.

There are many MODELS of this LAW. Newtons, Le Sage's, Einsteins, etc. Currently the most accepted MODEL to explain the LAW of gravity is einsteins theory of general relativity.

General relativity is not to be conflates with the LAW of gravity. Ok?

>> No.15181837

>>15181833
What is the particle of spacetime which has mass?

>> No.15181840

>>15181751
>Matter is made of things. They're called subatomic particles.
Wrong. Muons aren't subatomic particles retard. Nor are neutrinos. Yet both are matter.

>> No.15181842

>>15181835
It's truly the most amazing miracle of creation, the way that all the countless stars and planets all stay in their appointed places thanks to that simple law of attraction. We should be thankful every day that the Law of Gravity exists, and that it makes such a beautiful universe of order out of what could have been utter chaos and mayhem if the Law of Gravity didn't exist.

>> No.15181844

>>15181840
>A muon (/ˈmjuːɒn/ MYOO-on; from the Greek letter mu (μ) used to represent it) is an elementary particle
>A neutrino (/njuːˈtriːnoʊ/ new-TREE-noh; denoted by the Greek letter ν) is a fermion (an elementary particle
>In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle that is not composed of other particles.

>> No.15181845

>>15181837
No one knows, yet. Some physicists believe it to be the graviton. Personally, I think that we are on the brink of an amazing breakthrough in physics - and that this breakthrough will reveal to us the true particle of spacetime.

>> No.15181846

>>15181844
Now post the definition of subatomic.

>> No.15181847

>>15181812
>that's a bad argument, curvature is an intrinsic property. there's no need to bend "into something".
Show me something that is curved without 1. a body that is curving and 2. something that causes the curvature.

>> No.15181848

>>15181845
That sounds like aether theory with extra steps.

>> No.15181850

>>15181846
Unnecessary. I've already blown you out sufficiently for one argument.

>> No.15181852

>>15181844
>top quark is about 100x more massive than a hydrogen atom
>durrr it's subatomic
fucking retard.

>> No.15181853

>>15181848
It might be. Or it might be something even more shocking - and maybe far more simple - than that. Indeed, it may be one of the most revolutionary discoveries ever made about the way the universe works, and it may very well lead to an entirely new understanding of how space and time works, and what they really are. We live in very exciting times.

>> No.15181856

>bot is going ballistic again

>> No.15181858

>>15181853
Do you have any guesses as to what that might be? It sounds like you're imagining something in your head when you say that.

>> No.15181859

>>15181835
>The LAW of gravity is sacred. All mass attracts all mass. Period. It's true, forever and always. It's how nature operates.
Prove it.

>> No.15181861

>>15181856
Is the "bot" in the room with you right now?

>> No.15181862

>>15181859
Axiom.

>> No.15181873

>>15181833
>Well, you see, space has mass.
then according to relativity the bending in space should bend on itself infintely

>> No.15181877

>>15181833
>that bending of space/time creates a warp effect on light rays, making them appear to curve
the only experiment i know that "proves" this can be explained with simple refraction since it's hotter near the sun's border

>> No.15181878

>>15181835
>"gravity is a phenomenological law, Einstein's general relativity is just a model of it"
>"can we discuss models other than Einstein's?"
>"no"

>> No.15181880

>>15181862
cope

>> No.15181913

>>15181878
if you want to discuss worse models, that's your prerogative. just know that anyone who actually understands the topic has abandoned those models a long time ago. for example, there are good reasons why le sage's model didn't catch on.

>> No.15181925

>>15181913
>there are good reasons why le sage's model didn't catch on.
the only "good" reason I know if that relativity had to be invented because otherwise the michelson-morley experiment would prove that Earth is flat, thus destroying centuries of scientific certainty

>> No.15181927

>>15181913
>just know that anyone who actually understands the topic has abandoned those models a long time ago
wow, I am convinced.

>> No.15181930

>>15181925
lol, thank you for explaining (unwittingly) that you don't know what you're talking about.

>> No.15181933

>>15181930
Is there an experiment proving relativity?

>> No.15181955

>>15181930
>lol, thank you for explaining (unwittingly) that you don't know what you're talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLEhw7upzFE

>> No.15181963

>>15181933
>i don't know how experiments work
we know
>>15181955
i don't click or watch any youtube videos linked on /sci/ without a description of them. in 99% of cases they're schizo shit. not gambling.

>> No.15181966

>>15181963
>no experiment
so relativity is made up bullshit?

>> No.15181970

>>15181847
The universe :^)

>> No.15181984
File: 1.31 MB, 1x1, Albert-Einstein-The-Earth-Mover.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15181984

>>15181963
>i don't click or watch any youtube videos linked on /sci/ without a description of them.
here's an entire pdf

>> No.15181987

>>15181970
>tautology is SCOIENCE now

>> No.15181992

>>15181847
Curvature implies a particular type of mathematical relationship. It doesn't imply any "bodies" or "causes of curvature".

>> No.15182012

>>15181984
Kek so it is schizo stuff

>> No.15182029

>>15181992
So the surface of the Earth is curved into a sphere because of a mathematical relationship, not because of the material being shaped into a ball due to gravitational forces that are approximately equal on all sides?

>> No.15182061

>>15182029
>but muh surface of the earth
Excruciatingly low-IQ response. I've literally just explained to you curvature is something more abstract than the intuitive examples of curvature a smoothbrain like you knows from everyday life.

>> No.15182099

>>15182061
So where can I find a mathematical relationship without mechanical and material cause in nature?

>> No.15182098

>>15181680
Listen here you quack, gravity is a snatching force, black people snatch things that have mass. you know what else is black? black holes.
Checkmate retard.

>> No.15182101

>>15182099
The laws of nature govern matter; they are not caused by matter.

>> No.15182142

>>15182101
When do we know we have reached these uncaused "laws of nature"?
Why wasn't Ptolemaic celestial motion a "law of nature"? Why not Kepler's laws?
They're mathematical relationships but they ended up having a physical cause in gravity.
Gravity in turn was a "law of nature" until it was discovered that it's physically caused by "curvature of spacetime".
How are you so sure that "curvature of spacetime" is an uncaused law of nature, unlike what came before it that was claimed to be the same?

>> No.15182157

>>15182142
>When do we know we have reached these uncaused "laws of nature"?
Maybe never, but that's completely irrelevant. The point still stands that the curvature in question describes a mathematical relationship between time and scape that is implied in the way things move.

>> No.15182170

>>15182157
>Maybe never, but that's completely irrelevant.
It's completely relevant, because you haven't shown me something that curves without a physical cause in nature, other than what you take to be curving without cause on pure faith that it won't have one (spacetime).

>> No.15182173

>>15182170
You are quite clearly mentally ill. Hiding your posts from here on.

>> No.15182178

>>15182173
>believes in uncaused "mathematical relationships"
>"y-you're mentally ill"
Lmao.

>> No.15182198 [DELETED] 

Wouldn't you be able to measure these "gravity particles" by scientific instruments? Scientists can even measure neutrinos and all kinds of s*it. You could easily prove this theory and even see if the amount of gravity particles matches the variations of the strentgh of gravity on different parts of earth.

>> No.15182200

Wouldn't you be able to measure these "gravity particles" by scientific instruments? Scientists can even measure neutrinos and all kinds of s*it. You could easily prove this theory and even see if the amount of gravity particles matches the variations of the strenght of gravity on different parts of earth.

>> No.15182204

>>15182142
Qualitative empirical results (all mass attracts all mass; opposite charges attract, etc ) are laws of nature. If you start throwing math at it (inverse square law), you're modeling. There's some inconsistent language used in Kepler's laws in that there are qualitative descriptions such as period and orbit and eccentricity of an orbit being related, as opposed to the quantitative description of such a law.

>> No.15182212
File: 2.78 MB, 750x750, 9a044985c1731186994f564622bb95ff.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182212

>>15181740
>>15181830
It looks like this in 3d. The 3d view is much easier to see what's happening than the typical 2d plane that people usually show

>> No.15182231

>>15182204
The word you're looking for is empirical phenomena. They're not laws of nature in the sense of >>15182101, because otherwise you'd have to accept Aristotelian physics as a law of nature, because it is an empirically valid qualitative result that bodies come to a stop on their own in Earth's atmosphere. But that doesn't count, because it is physically caused by friction, right?
So we're back at the beginning: Aristotelian physics was a law of nature derived from empirical phenomena that turned out to have material and mechanical causes. How do you know gravity/spacetime curvature is not the same?

>> No.15182245

>>15182231
Which indicates newtons first law is actually a law of nature. Completely blind to what "force" is, objects continue moving until something causes them to stop moving. And an object doesn't move unless something causes it to move. You don't need a concept of friction to understand this. The best model to describe this phenomenon is principle of least action, mathematically described by the Euler Lagrange equations. This is partially why results in QFT are taken as so sacred because of how truly fundamental the principle of least action is. And violations of it (action at a distance) are very exciting.

>> No.15182262

>>15182245
Newton's first law is not Aristotelian physics.
According Aristotelian physics, all bodies in motion eventually come to a stop.
This an empirical, qualitative true fact of physics in the atmosphere of the Earth.
Using the same logic used to defend an uncaused spacetime curvature, "it's a law of nature so it doesn't need a physical cause", how do you show the Aristotelians that they are wrong? Note: they reject the need for Newton's first law because "the laws of nature don't need explanation". They are quite content with Ptolemaic epicycles, too, it's just another law of nature for them, a mathematical relationship.

>> No.15182580

>>15182212
the 3d version doesn't solve the problem because all the edges can only deform because there is an empty space between them, otherwise they would be occupying the same space as another edge at the samet ime

>> No.15182611

>>15182262
He's not smart enough to understand your point, anon. And even if he was he wouldn't allow you to win the argument because he's not here to listen to reason.

>> No.15182619

>>15182611
>has his 85 IQ drivel ignored
>replies to his own post

>> No.15182626

>this thread again
>they keep feeding the troll

>> No.15182631

>>15182231
>it is an empirically valid qualitative result that bodies come to a stop on their own in Earth's atmosphere
>On their own
>In Earth's atmosphere
Then it's not really on their own, is it dipshit?

>> No.15182632
File: 797 KB, 1280x722, a fucking magnet.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182632

>>15181680
>Which makes more sense?
It's a description that basically means "mass accelerates to mass". How? We don't know lol.

>>15181711
>Descriptions on top of descriptions
Still doesn't explain the attraction/repulsion

>>15181740
A model derived by some deluded quack that proposes "Space" has properties to bend and warp.

>>15181751
>It's a quantitative property of matter.
A magnet and an unmagnetized chunk with the same quantity of material exhibits different qualities. Quantity cannot explain this phenomena.

>Matter is made of things. They're called subatomic particles
>atomism is atomism, how can you not understand this?
This is the most buck of bots being broken right here.

>> No.15182643

>>15182631
Good job!
Now, if Aristotelian bodies coming to a halt is physically caused by the friction of Earth's atmosphere, gravity and spacetime curvature affecting the motion of matter is physically caused by the...?

>> No.15182648

>>15182262
>qualitative true fact of physics in the atmosphere of the Earth.
>Fact of physics
>In the atmosphere on earth
Then it's geocentric and not a fact of physics, dipshit.

>> No.15182650

>>15182262
>law of nature for them, a mathematical relationship.
>Law of nature
>Mathematical relationship
You're so fucking stupid I don't know how your brain isn't exploding. If it's a mathematical relationship then it's a model of the law of nature.

>> No.15182653

>>15182643
>I still can't tell the difference between a model and a law of nature
We can tell. In GR the distortion of spacetime is caused by mass. It's not a statement on the law of nature itself, retard.

>> No.15182654

>>15182631
>>15182648
>>15182650
Having some trouble with those counterfactual hypothetical statements, eh, anon? It's alright.

The point is that the Aristotelians in my posts and the relativists are committing the same fallacy.

>> No.15182656

>>15182654
counterfactual ≠ self-contradictory.
Point is that your argument contradicts itself

>> No.15182659

>>15182653
>In GR the distortion of spacetime is caused by mass.
How does spacetime distort without being a material? How does mass mechanically cause spacetime distorsion? Even more abstract fields like temperature emerge from mechanical qualities of actual matter.

>> No.15182660

>>15182656
His argument is sound and you sound like a schizophrenic.

>> No.15182664

>>15182656
>Point is that your argument contradicts itself
So you're claiming that we just know everything now and that THIS time we've hit the rock bottom of physics? That spacetime curvature cannot be explained by anything except itself?

>> No.15182668

>>15182659
>>15182659
>How does spacetime distort without being a material?
By being a metric space.
>How does mass mechanically cause spacetime distorsion?
The stress energy tensor.
>Even more abstract fields like temperature emerge from mechanical qualities of actual matter.
Temperature isn't a field.

Look, wrong you're a pseud making shit up but you don't have to make it THIS ways to identify your ignorance.

>> No.15182671
File: 72 KB, 850x400, cd373b11a398ca9153278114f7f2a42f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182671

>>15182659
>How does spacetime distort without being a material?
"Buy this book"/"you're a flat earther"/"because of measures". This is half of the responses you'll get for daring to ask such a question.

>> No.15182678
File: 609 KB, 1860x862, 1537570343398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182678

>>15182671
Fuck he beat me to it.
>>15182668

>Temperature isn't a field.
Lets have fun;

"What's a field?"

>> No.15182684

>>15182678
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

>> No.15182686

>>15182668
>By being a metric space.
>The stress energy tensor.
What causes it to be a metric space? What causes the stress-energy tensor to be what it is? What do they describe?

>Temperature isn't a field.
Anon...

>> No.15182693

>>15182686
>What causes it to be a metric space?
Nothing. It's a mathematical tool.
>What causes the stress-energy tensor to be what it is?
Noting. It's a tool.
>What do they describe?
The law of gravitational attraction.

Again, it's clear you don't understand the difference between a law of nature and a model used to describe such law.

>> No.15182698

>>15182693
>Again, it's clear you don't understand the difference between a law of nature and a model used to describe such law.
This is just religion by a different name. You're part of a cult.

>> No.15182700

>>15182693
>Nothing. It's a mathematical tool.
>Noting. It's a tool.
How can nothing be the cause of something? How can metric spaces and the stress energy tensor be "nothing, just a mathematical tool", and yet be the cause of spacetime curvature? Is spacetime curvature nothing, too? Then why does it affect real, existing matter?

>The law of gravitational attraction.
What causes it? If you believe that it is caused by spacetime curvature, which is caused by "nothing, just a mathematical tool", how do you know that it isn't like the Aristotelian law of natural motion, which is physically caused by friction? Aristotelians didn't know that. What do we not know about gravity?

>> No.15182727

>>15182580
The edges in that animation are just for visualization purposes. In reality it's all continuous and there's no limit to the amount of deformation, so some region of space could become extremely compressed and it can always compress more towards infinity if it needs to

>> No.15182731
File: 35 KB, 1710x283, TakeWikipediaasSeriouslyastheydo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182731

>>15182684
oh that is cute, but I take wikipedia as seriously as they do.

>>15182693
>A mathematical tool caused the spacetime curvature
Okay Master Chief

>> No.15182732
File: 42 KB, 511x507, 1494438100673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182732

>>15181775
>And I suppose this has been proved using the scientific method?
Yes.
>What was the experiment? How do you isolate "spacetime curvature" as a variable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

Now if you'd excuse me I have some very important scientific experiments to run that could well determine the future of mankind, such as seeing if I can break the daily human limit of fapping to loli hentai.

>> No.15182737

>>15182732
Was admitting to pedophilia part of your plan?

>> No.15182748

>>15182737
Of coursh! I had to find out how many glowniggers there are on this board.

>> No.15182776

>>15182727
>some region of space could become extremely compressed and it can always compress more towards infinity if it needs to
infinity also doesn't solve the issue, what is space bending into?

>> No.15182781

>>15182732
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
>>15181877
>the only experiment i know that "proves" this can be explained with simple refraction since the area is hotter near the sun's surface

>> No.15182784

>>15181680
False. Flat earthers do not believe in gravity. However, globe earthers, specifically the dark-matterist sect believe that at sufficient distances, gravity is a repulsive force.

>> No.15182828

They claim the earth (a flat disk) is accelerating through space and that is causing gravity. But bruh the earth would be going like a bagillion mph by now lolz.

>> No.15182838

>>15182828
>They claim the earth (a flat disk) is accelerating through space and that is causing gravity.
Only one website claims to believe this, and it's run by some mystery guy that nobody even knows.

>> No.15182861
File: 19 KB, 400x266, 1673174124508865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15182861

They should all just learn physics, right boys?

>> No.15182901

>>15182204
What proofs do you have that "all mass attracts all mass"?

>> No.15182902

>>15182828
No, nobody claims that.

>> No.15182911

>>15182828
>They claim the earth (a flat disk) is accelerating through space and that is causing gravity
No flat earther actually claims that because despite what you think, flat earthers actually study physics so they would know if earth had a constant acceleration it would eventually have an infinite speed. Like i said in the OP some believe gravity is caused by the atmosphere's pressure, others by "cosmic particles" to put it simply

>> No.15182914

>>15182784
>False. Flat earthers do not believe in gravity.
yes, they do believe in it as gravity can be measured using gravimeters.

>> No.15183035

>>15181740
Spacetime is everyday space plus an added dimension to account for the photoelectric effect. Frequency not intensity of light cause the voltage produced.

>>15181743
Energy is the ability to withstand interaction and the potential to interact.

>>15181711
This is correct. You have attractive mass in the Earth, attracted mass in the piano, and the observer. The observer feels weight on his feet causing his required frequency for interaction to be the same as the Earth.

The piano has a higher frequency of interaction. It needs to withstand more frames of interaction to the Earth's one. Like a magnet it's internal configuration moves toward the earth, exchanging distance for unapparent clockspeed.

Not withstanding interaction means it glows white hot as everything absorbs it's heat. That doesn't happen because it requires more from the surroundings than the piano just moving down.

>>15181680
>Flat Earthers
Matter on this level does not see flat or round. It just sees interaction, then bright/ionized. It's a fool's errand to make this mean anything. Tell the flat urfers to pursue their efforts studying biochemistry, as in, cleaning the local toilets you illiterate queers.

Two rules:
Configuration is a medium of interaction.
Things do not have their own internal mind. They do what's easiest dictated by their surroundings.

>> No.15183041

>>15183035
>Spacetime is everyday space plus an added dimension to account for the photoelectric effect. Frequency not intensity of light cause the voltage produced.
You didn't provide an answer to the question.

>> No.15183045

>>15183035
But is there a proof of gravity?

>> No.15183048

>>15183035
>Tell the flat urfers to pursue their efforts studying biochemistry, as in, cleaning the local toilets you illiterate queers.
People who clean toilets are more meritorious than any physishit