/sci/ - Science & Math

This thread is antisemitic

>>15781510
How can geometry be logical ?

>>15781489
Spacetime is a mathematical map on which you can impose gravitational influence, there is currently no physical standpoint to what actually causes gravity or what it is

>>15781489
>Everything moves in a straight line
>Mass fucks space. We call this fucking of space gravity. Why does it happen? We don't know why; only that it does.
>Straight lines in fucked space are a trajectory influenced by gravity

>>15781489
Yes, most things can only be explained in terms of other things.

>>15781489
You might appreciate reading about loop quantum gravity.

it's not a logical argument.
it's a model of reality.

>>15781558
Shh, you'll summon the Idealists.

>>15781518
>Everything moves in a straight line
>Things don't move in a straight line
>Redefine what it means for a line to be straight
>Everything moves in a straight line

>>15781489
>electric charge generates an electric field because it has charge
>electric field forces charge according to the field because ... uh...

>>mass bends spacetime
mentally ill semitic talk

>>15782454
feel free to explain your own model, predictions and experimental results

>>15782495
feel free to post evidence of the curvature

>>15782496
sure

we have always observed light traveling in straight lines

somehow light coming from behind massive objects gets bent and distorted

therefore something is fucking with light's path

since in empty space there is nothing to influence light it stands to reason it's space itself doing it

>>15782507
that has never been observed, and nor has the curvature

>>15781489
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

>>15782507
>we have always observed light traveling in straight lines
?

>>15781489
I dont know anything about general relativity and i always felt like it was just a generalization of newtons 1st law that orbits are straight lines if there are no forces.
The generalization goes by calling such straight lines geodesics and that spacetime is flat, and therefore any real orbits are geodesics of a curved spacetime.
I never understood how curvature or geodesics were defined in spacetime because how do you even define a concept of distance in 4D?
Minkowski? No clue
Whatever these curves are, projected into 3D space they must look like conical sections, which can be ellipses or hyperboloids.
One could come up with some curvature such that the geodesics projected in 3D come out as conical sections, and assign that to the fields created by some central point mass. That ought to be a basic to generalize to any mass distribution.
But i dont believe thats how its done since gravity in general relativity behaves different that newtonian gravity..

>>15782625
>curved glass

>>15782643
I see you're very smart

>earth is actually flat
>it only appears spherical because the spacetime is bent near massive objects.
check mate, round earthers

>>15781510
einstein's pilpul is circular logic that comes directly out of the talmud.

>>15781489
>gravitational forces
What gravitational forces? The point is that there aren't gravitational forces

Not an argument.

>>15783665
Actually gravity acts on itself to expand space by twisting the curvature so there is a force spreading spacetime apart. The dark matter bullshit is just a meme cause gravity is hard to understand

>>15781489
>>mass bends spacetime because...it has
...PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOUR WITH REGARDS TO THE HIGGS FIELD.
Once you drill down into what MASS is, there is no circular logic.
It is all simply field interaction and effects due to field interaction.

>>15783743
The word 'dark' is just added when people are ignorant of what it is they are seeing, measuring and what is really going on.
When you use dark X to explain dark Y and the dark Z is making it happen, that's not physics any more... it is hand-waving as an artform.

Reminder that General Relativity has no empirical evidence to support it. All of the supposed proofs are junk science with huge error bars.

Newtonian Mechanics can predict light bending around massive objects. Newton even pondered the question, though he didn't have enough evidence to give an answer.

Mercury's orbital procession can also be explained through with mundane classical explanations. In fact Newton himself did this in the Principia, yet it was ignored by the physics community for some reason.

>>15783787
>Newtonian Mechanics can predict light bending around massive objects
>Mercury's orbital procession can also be explained through with mundane classical explanations
Source?

>>15782625
fermat's principle of least time is exactly what explains space warping, but that anon rejects everything so I couldn't use it as an argument

>>15783787

>>15781510
>>15782687
find Yeshua.

>>15782509
it has, google it
now explain your own model
>inb4 yhwh werks in mysterious ways

>>15783792
Soares 2009 for light bending
Mercury's precession can be understood from first principles. The supposed proofs calculate the procession using a static solar system barycenter. but the barycenter moves due to planetary influence.
The relativistic answer is only accurate with major fudging and first order approximations, and you can get the correct answer using classical methods anyway, so what did relativity add at all?

>>15783878
Yup. You're an idiot.

>>15782687
pretty much this

It does not explain it lmao. GR states just einstein corrections to gravity for particles close or speed of light. Also gravity corrections for masses very big.

Newton published theory gravity in the year 1666
>666

>>15781489
>How the fuck is this shit not circular logic?
Welcome to the real world, son.

>>15783989
Year of Nero Caesar in gematria?

>>15783818
you sound worse than this faggot
https://www.patreon.com/Konpakuto
claims momentum can be transferred contactlessly lmao

>>15783883
prove otherwise then

>>15781489
>How the fuck is this shit not circular logic?
nothing you wrote would indicate that it is.

>>15781518
The problem is that the 'straight line' bends near the object but straightens out as it moves past it, like the red line. What actually happens with orbit is the green line, which is not a straight line with respect to curved space, but very clearly curves with respect to space

>>15782507
Something like Unruh Radiation could exert a pressure on it, while being unobservable to people outside of the light's inertial reference frame

>>15781489
Mass IS the bending itself.

>>15785868
That red line isn't straight with regards to local geometry. The green line is straight with regards to local geometry.

>>15781489
>force into bend
You made that up. If there's a bend, why do you need anything else? The bend is what keeps it in orbit.

>>15782658
Gottem lol

>>15786090
If the green line is straight with regards to local geometry, wouldn't light follow it and orbit like the moon?

>>15781489
All objects with mass have a gravitational field. So an electron has a very small gravitational field that bends spacetime. On the other hand, a photon does not bend spacetime because it has no mass. So yes you could define any particle with mass as just having a gravitational field.

>>15781489
>gravitational forces slot mass into the bends because [math]{\frac{d^2x_{\lambda}}{ds^2}}=-{\Gamma}^{\lambda}_{{\mu}{\nu}}{\frac{dx_{\mu}}{ds}}{\frac{dx_{\nu}}{ds}}[/math]

>>15781489
knots are circular logic!!!!

>>15781515
I trust anon et al that says space falls into mass
>inb4 what is space
idk

>>15783787
Einstein was proven right long after he wrote some of his schizo babble down. That is a universal sign of being right. The jew has broken your mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKwJayXTZUs

>>15786573
Yes, actually, it does. However due to light having such high energy and moving at, well, the speed of light, it takes an extreme gravitational force to have light not just speed right past. Under the circumstances you find almost everywhere in the universe all it does it get slightly tugged on by objects it moves past. This diverts its path, but is never strong enough to completely stop its path. The only exception to this is black holes. At the event horizon the gravitational pull is strong enough to capture light. When you "see" a black hole, all you are seeing is the volume of space around the black hole itself within which nothing can escape. The part that you "see" isn't actually a real object. Imagine Jupiter, but everything beneath Callisto's orbit can't be seen. You wouldn't say that Jupiter is the size of Callisto's orbit. The same thing applies to black holes, except we have no way to observe the actual object within that zone. The part of the black hole that's actually an object is only the singularity.
I should note that the only place where light would be able to maintain a stable orbit would be the event horizon itself. However due to the event horizon being nothing more than a 2 dimensional plane with no thickness it is impossible for light to actually orbit there in the real world.

>>15787326
>The event horizon is a 2D plane
I'm curious, please elaborate. I always thought it was a sphere with the singularity in the center.

>>15787342
Yes, it is. Mathematically, a normal sphere is a 2 dimensional plane in 3 dimensional space. Its surface is the 2d plane which makes it up. In the real world event horizons are the only perfect mathematical 2-spheres, as they're called. A 3-sphere would be a 4 dimensional ball.

>>15787369
Ooh I get it now thanks.

>>15783878
>Soares 2009 for light bending
I assume you're taking about this:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508030
Yes Newtonian mechanics can be used to get deflection of light, but only under the assumption light has some mass. The point however is that Newtonian gravity predicts half the deflection that GR does. Experiments have confirmed the value predicted by GR. Rejecting this Newtonian fudge.
>Mercury's precession can be understood from first principles. The supposed proofs calculate the procession using a static solar system barycenter. but the barycenter moves due to planetary influence.
Source needed.
Note that in the 19th century people spent a lot of time looking for dust clouds and inner planets to explain Mercury's orbit. I doubt they would bother if everything works as you said.
>The relativistic answer is only accurate with major fudging and first order approximations
You don't get the correct value for lensing. And then there are all the other tests of GR, gravitational redshift, time dilation, the Shapiro delay, gravitational waves.

>>15787326
I don't get how curved space is compatible with inertia though. If a thing is following a straight line with respect to space, and orbit is caused by space itself bending in a circle, wouldn't anything moving the same direction in that circle follow the same trajectory regardless of how fast it is? Having more inertia (like light going super fast) seems like it would only cause something to resist changing direction with respect to space, meaning an orbit is constantly changing direction with respect to space, which would seem to defy >>15786573

>>15787695
Meant to say it would defy >>15786090 .

>>15781489
>>15781510
Nah it isn't, jews brought you the globohomo space model and you sciencegoys ate right up.

>>15787122
>maser clock (magnetic)
>changes speed as its oscillates in Earth's Magnetic field
>somehow this proves a gravitational effect
relativity fags don't even try

>>15787443
>I assume
>source needed
>I doubt
fucking loser.

My knowledge is channeled from the universe itself. You are a spinozist whore suckling the tits of moloch

>>15788628
>maser clock (magnetic)

>>15781489
>use words to describe mathematics instead of mathematics
>get confused

many such cases!

>>15788904
Tell me what you think a "microwave" is anon.
Please go ahead...

>>15789419
Something that doesn't give a fuck about earths magnetic field

>>15789430
You realize that masers rely on a static magnetic field to function right?
What do you suppose would happen if that magnetic field fluctuated?

>>15781489
Einstein created a talmudic version of science, what did you expect?

>>15789437
Fine disregard masers. Let's talk about the drift in gps clocks whom are atomic clocks in stable orbit https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

>>15789468
Cesium clocks also fluctuate in magnetic fields.

>>15789477
Fluctuating magnetic fields? At geo synchronous orbit? Requiring in a constant factory offset?

>>15789477
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326581425_In-orbit_operation_of_an_atomic_clock_based_on_laser-cooled_87Rb_atoms
And what limp excuse do you have for the shielded ones?

>>15789488
You can't have a truly geosynchronous orbit, there is still fairly large eccentricity.
More over, even if you were able to achieve a truly geosynchronous orbit, Earth's Magnetic field naturally fluctuates. Fluctuations in the geodynamo that actually produces the field, plus interactions from the oceans as tides fluctuate, ocean water is a conductor.

>>15789495
not all of them have proper insultation. and the insultation doesn't mitigate to the order of magnitude you'd need to detect a relativistic gravitational effect.

>>15789501
Fluctuations wouldn't result in a constant drift

>>15789501
>the insultation doesn't mitigate to the order of magnitude you'd need to detect a relativistic gravitational effect.
Show us your calculation. Otherwise it's an empty claim.