/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1584533
Please keep philosophy out of /sci/ence.

Also,
>The universe began by supernatural means.
>supernatural means
Explain this

none of these are real, philosophy major here

>>1584539
Natural means don't give you something from nothing.

>>1584546
That's because the philosophy you studied was wrong.

>>1584548
But nothingness cannot possibly exist. Even vast emptiness is a form of energy and force. And energy, when you give it time and the right conditions, can convert itself into matter (and matter into energy as E=mc^2 states) over time and keep (slowly) doing so for ages and ages. That's completely natural.

>>1584593
This implies a universe that has existed forever, which is not so.

>>1584599
No it implies that existence is always consent and can deform and accumulate itself in various verses. Multiverses do not develop until until matter and energy, photons and forces accumulate one into another, collect each other over trillions of years, and then expand out continuously until one or more universes collide with each other, obliterating and destroying everything in themselves, yet create a new one in it's place to start anew. Repeat cycle.

>>1584533
>Physics is deterministic
Double slit experiment

>Motion is absolute.
not at the infinitesimal scale,

>time is absolute.
Tell that to Muons ejected from the sun that enter earths atmosphere at near speeds of light

>Neither the past nor the future exist.
Depends on what you mean by exist

>Light waves travel in a medium.
Michaelson and Morley Experiment.
Done near the end of the 1800's. They got a Nobel
for disproving the medium hypothesis

>Gravity is a real force.
Einstein yo, for being made famous by his theories, his theories are not so famous

>The universe began by supernatural means.
You were not there at the beginning so you wouldn't know.

Unsuccessful troll is unknowledgable. Go eat a dick up.

>>1584613
Now you're just using technical language to cover up your own lack of understanding. "Existence is constant" is just a fancy way of claiming that the universe has always existed.

>>1584620
>Double slit experiment
The location of the particle is determined by its initial position and the waves.

>not at the infinitesimal scale,
There is no such thing as an "infinitesimal scale."

>Tell that to Muons ejected from the sun that enter earths atmosphere at near speeds of light
The fact that muons have a longer lifetime does not indicate time has somehow changed.

>Michaelson and Morley Experiment. Done near the end of the 1800's. They got a Nobel for disproving the medium hypothesis
Failure to detect the velocity of a medium doesn't mean the medium isn't there.

>Einstein yo, for being made famous by his theories, his theories are not so famous
All of the equations of general relativity still make perfect sense if gravity is a force.

>>1584621
>>1584621
>"Existence is constant" is just a fancy way of claiming that the universe has always existed.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with universes other than that it permits the existence universes, and that existence itself is the only thing that has been around for ever (even as utter black emptiness). As well as your refusal to pensively comprehend that there are billions of other universes outside our own and have been around for far much longer than ours.

Also, only unintelligent children would complain about and ad hominem against someone for linguistic covenance.

>Light waves travel in a medium.

Whoops, I guess that means no more sunshine.

>>1584533
Get off /sci/, Kaiji

>>1584635
You have invented an object which you call "existence" or "utter black emptiness." All objects are part of the universe; if any object exists, the universe does.

>>1584644
Or: The space between us and the sun is not empty.

>>1584662
An object's presence would entirely depend on the verse, dimension, force, and frequency (if string theory is correct) it is in.

>>1584657
Who is Kaiji and what right do you have to tell him to get off /sci/?

>>1584665
Have you even read Einstein's take on Newton's law of gravity? He found it to be inaccurate, the "gravity pulls objects to a certain mass body" part at least (because a force doesn't pull but push), and that gravity instead manipulates the space around a mass body to move it around, and whatever object is nearby just gets caught into the space and becomes pushed down to the massed body.

>>1584667
You appear to be mentally ill. You made no coherent point, and of the four random items you listed, only one of them can contain objects.

>Motion is absolute.
No.
>Time is absolute.
No.
>Neither the past nor the future exist.
No.
>Light waves travel in a medium.
If you consider the electromagnetic field to be a medium.
>Gravity is a real force.
Not in general relativity.
>The universe began by supernatural means.
No. Those supernatural means would have to be outside the universe. Outside the universe means NON-EXISTENT by the definition of universe.

>>1584675
He's a paedophile troll from /tv/, just comes here to attack and trolls other, gets b& daily for even posting here.

>>1584680
First, Newton's formula for the force was inaccurate, as is Einstein's, but that doesn't mean gravity isn't a force. Second, forces can both push and pull objects.

>>1584682
You have a clear miscomprehension of what mental illness is (unless it's your usual ad hominem to attack people). And all four can exist in one universe at one time, if not a universe is made up of all for and even more.

>>1584694
>as is Einstein's
Explain.

>>1584683
Scientists make these assertions a lot, but they can't prove them.

>>1584694
>>1584694
That is completely inaccurate and fallacious, forces cannot pull anything, even themselves, and would require to manipulate whatever space or energy around to push it towards itself, but cannot pull. In fact, how it would be able to pull anything is physically impossible and a mathematical incoherency. And yes, gravity is a force of energy, the defining force of energy in this universe.

>>1584633
This is getting fun.

>The location of the particle is determined by its initial position and the waves.
The waves are not like water waves. They are probabilistic waves, thus non deterministic. Determinism means you know the specific out come. What we know from the "waves" is the set of out comes possible.

>There is no such thing as an "infinitesimal scale."
I will correct myself, as you approach the Planck Scale. Though I would say you can't know where something is and where it is going. There fore motion in not absolute, also known as the Uncertainty Principle.

>The fact that muons have a longer lifetime does not indicate time has somehow changed.
Yes it does, relative to the muons. Also GPS systems
use that fact that time changes. With out realizing that time is not absolute, GPS cannot exist.

>>Michaelson and Morley Experiment. Done near the end of the 1800's. They got a Nobel for disproving the medium hypothesis
They did detect the velocity of the medium, and found the medium was non existent.

>All of the equations of general relativity still make perfect sense if gravity is a force.
Yes and no. I don't particularly know anything about the equations. But I'm assuming you don't either.

I would like to know where you've studied at, good sir. In return I will tell you mine.

>>1584702
Uhm, muons in cosmic rays, hello? Those prove that time isn't absolute. The fact that we don't have to correct for the Earth's motion through the solar system in experiments? That proves motion isn't absolute.
Michelson-Morley and related experiments show there is no reason to assume existence of the aether. On the other hand Maxwell's equations show that light is a wave in the EM field. Not taht you would be able to formulate much less grasp or solve Maxwell's equations. Or understand general relativity.

Also that nothing outside the universe can exist is as basic a truth as that a square cannot be round. Universe = everything that exists. Something that is not in the universe = something that doesn't exist. It's the damn definition of the word.

>>1584696
Stringing together words in nonsensical ways is a symptom of some mental illnesses, although I am not a shrink and cannot diagnose you. You speak about objects in forces. Those words, combined in that way, do not express a meaningful concept.

>>1584548
>Natural means don't give you something from nothing.
How can you support that assertion? Natural law says nothing of the impossibility of something from nothing at the time of the origin, just that it's impossible to get something from nothing now.

>>1584694
> but that doesn't mean gravity isn't a force
Nobody said that, nice misacquisition.

>>1584699
The source term in general relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

>>1584709
I pull on a string to open and close my blinds. Where is your theory now?

>>1584633

> The location of the particle is determined by its initial position and the waves.
You mean the quantum wavefunction that determines the LIKELYHOOD of where you will observe it when you do observe it? The very same wave that even for a single particle interfere with itself and thus make an interference pattern even shot one at a time? Lern sum seye-ens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sccvRatlQ

>There is no such thing as an "infinitesimal scale."
Check again. Ever heard of the nano-scale? That's huge compared to the scale of electrons. Scales smaller then that exist too. And the rules are a bit different. See video.

>The fact that muons have a longer lifetime does not indicate time has somehow changed.
So you're saying that these special solar muons are different in some way from the ones that can be created in a lab? Guess what, they're exactly the same. Elementary particles that are identical are IDENTICAL. The change in apparent lifetime is consistently explained by relativity.

>Failure to detect the velocity of a medium doesn't mean the medium isn't there.
It does when you're measuring what would be the medium itself. A matter wave isn't anything but regular irregularities that travel at a constant speed through "stuff", known as a medium. Measuring the difference between speed of a wave in a medium and a known speed in the same medium at rest will give you the speed that the medium is traveling in. Think before you say.

> All of the equations of general relativity still make perfect sense if gravity is a force.
Um, ok, what's your point? This is kind of a "duh" to me, except for what you mean by "still". "Still" as opposed to what?

>>1584716
>Stringing together words in nonsensical ways is a symptom of some mental illnesses
That's like saying you think the sky is blue, but when someone says it's a light blue, you think they're mentally ill. Or that saying a money shot isn't a real money shot unless currency is involved.

>You speak about objects in forces.
If you knew anything about physics, you'd know that matter and energy both behave off each other. This is not hard to understand, even a first grade American child can get this fervently.

Time and love/attraction were possible, time and love created, in the process of "sex" or conjoining with each other, a vacuum of energy, creating gravity and light, both forms of energy, in their images.

Time is part of everything, and love/attraction is part of everything too. If it wasn't most things wouldn't live or stick to the earth, feel attracted to gravity/light etc etc.

Light is in times image as it "moulds" to things, makes things visible etc etc. Gravity is in loves image as it attracts and pulls things to the planets and keeps planets together, etc.

Space and Matter........

Super-massive white-hole (time)
Super-massive black-hole (love or attraction)

Explained without the scientific terms, what exactly does a black hole do? It just loves/attracts.

>>1584737
Your string is pushing your blinds in the opposite direction to close them, as well as it has to push against a corner or ramp to each such behaviour effectively. As well as your muscles are pushing against each other to perform what can be perceived as a pulley motion.

And this is a law, not theory.

>>1584713
>The waves are not like water waves. They are probabilistic waves, thus non deterministic. Determinism means you know the specific out come. What we know from the "waves" is the set of out comes possible.
That's what you know from the waves. In order to predict the path of the particle, you need the waves and the particle's initial position.

>I will correct myself, as you approach the Planck Scale. Though I would say you can't know where something is and where it is going. There fore motion in not absolute, also known as the Uncertainty Principle.
Not being able to measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>Yes it does, relative to the muons. Also GPS systems use that fact that time changes. With out realizing that time is not absolute, GPS cannot exist.
There is only one time; it isn't relative to anything. GPS systems account for the fact that clock rates change.

>They did detect the velocity of the medium, and found the medium was non existent.
This is incoherent. If the medium has a velocity, it must exist.

>Yes and no. I don't particularly know anything about the equations. But I'm assuming you don't either.
That would be a faulty assumption.

>>1584737
that's not pulling though, it's using various factors to push against each other and perform the action you wish to achieve

>>1584737
That's not how a force works, ma'am.

>>1584737
Weakest. Point. Today.

>>1584762
>That would be a faulty assumption.
Derive the Schwartschild metric.

>>1584715
>Uhm, muons in cosmic rays, hello? Those prove that time isn't absolute.
No, they prove that decay rate depends on velocity.

> The fact that we don't have to correct for the Earth's motion through the solar system in experiments? That proves motion isn't absolute.
There are plenty of experiments in which we do. Stellar aberration comes to mind.

> Michelson-Morley and related experiments show there is no reason to assume existence of the aether. On the other hand Maxwell's equations show that light is a wave in the EM field.
Maxwell formulated his equations to describe the aether. We assume existence of the aether to answer the question "What is waving?".

>>1584793
> No, they prove that decay rate depends on velocity.

What's that? You're saying that the RATE OF PASSAGE OF TIME for an object depends on it's VELOCITY RELATIVE TO AN OBSERVER?

>matter and energy both behave off each other.
Now there you go again. To "behave off energy" does not have any meaning. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

>>1584793
>No, they prove that decay rate depends on velocity.
No, they don't. Then the Earth would be the favored reference frame over all other possibilities. It's so unreasonable it can be dismissed. Also, conservation of momentum and Noether's theorem.

>There are plenty of experiments in which we do. Stellar aberration comes to mind.
Obviously experiments on the Earth. Idiot. Drop a ball, describe its motion. Guess what you don't need any terms for the celestial motion of the Earth.

>Maxwell formulated his equations to describe the aether. We assume existence of the aether to answer the question "What is waving?".
No, Maxwell's equations describe the EM field.

>>1584801
No, their decay rate. Some things decay faster than others; it doesn't mean that time moves faster or slower. For example, muons at rest decay in a few microseconds, while uranium atoms take billions of years. This is fairly basic physics.

Here's the formula:

Namefag/tripfag wanders into /sci/

Namefag trolls

Faggots get trolled

Repeat as desired for maximum lulz

oh u guise

>>1584816
>No, they don't. Then the Earth would be the favored reference frame over all other possibilities. It's so unreasonable it can be dismissed. Also, conservation of momentum and Noether's theorem.
There's no reason to believe that the Earth is the correct reference frame and not some other. I don't see how momentum conservation or Noether's theorem are relevant here, try elaborating.

>>1584821

Yes, you see, it IS fairly basic physics to realize that a muon is not the same as a Uranium atom. It's also basic physics to realize that a muon is the same thing as a muon. There is no way to take a bunch of the same elementary particle and "put a sticker on" one of them to keep it distinguished. All muons are EXACTLY like all other muons. The ones produced in a lab are the same muons coming from the sun and deep space.

tl;dr: muon=/=uranium, only difference between sun muons and lab muons is their speed, so their RATE OF TIME relative to us is dependant on their VELOCITY relative to us.

>>1584775
There is a force from my hand which pulls on the string. There is a force from the string that pulls on some other mechanism. Again, this is fairly basic physics.

>>1584845
>tl;dr: muon=/=uranium, only difference between sun muons and lab muons is their speed,
So the lifetime must depend on the speed of the particle as well as the type of particle. Glad you see that.

>>1584808
>To "behave off energy" does not have any meaning
Yes it does, it means that each force and matter needs certain amounts of energy in order to work properly. A skateboard needs the force of inertia for it them to the way it does and keep doing so until slows down or friction occurs (depending on surfaces under it). A piece of paper needs wind or an airflow to blow away. A fire needs lots of heat and matter to combust in temperature in order to keep itself burning. A bird needs its wings to repetitively push against the air beneath it so it can fly.

And vice versa when energy sometimes requires matter to keep itself going. Like fire needing wood or flammable material. Or even the sun needing nuclear fusion to keep itself burning as E=mc² states.

Both energy and matter working off each other in order to produce the behaviours we see them do today.

>Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.
Nice ad hominem, if not verbal assault, batman.

Philosophical Truth is an oxymoron.

>>1584751
>>1584751
>>1584751
>>1584751

>>1584846

Seriously, this particular argument thread is bull shit. Gravity is only an attractive force. Electromagnetism can be either attractive (pulling) or repelling (pushing) depending on relative charge. Guess what? All the mechanical interactions you're talking about are the net effect of all the ELECTROMAGNETIC forces between the atoms and molecules that make up your hand and the string and the blinds. How much of that is "pushing" or "pulling" is a matter of perspective. You may was well argue about whether this: M is an m or an upside down w.

>>1584877
The argument was made that gravity cannot be a force because it pulls, and forces only push. I'm glad you agree that said argument is wrong.

>>1584846
Incorrect. Your muscles in your arms are pushing down against each other in order to drag the string down with it. But instead the string is pushing the blinds in the opposite direction to close them, when it turns pushes the string back to perform the "pulling" action you so desirably perceive, if not using gravity to push the string and your hand/arms down with it.

s posting
t posting
o posting
p posting

STOP p

STOP o

STOP a

STOP s

STOP t

STOP i

STOP n

STOP g

STOP POSTING FAGGOTS

>>1584883
Incorrect. The argument is that a force cannot pull, and that gravity is a force that instead pushes objects down to a certain mass/body by manipulating to space around to move it. It's not a "pulling force" (which cannot exist) but a "pushing force."

>>1584897

THATS INCORRECT, because your vagina is made of 1's and 0's therefore I have a massive XXL donghole.

>>1584862
>Yes it does, it means that each force and matter needs certain amounts of energy in order to work properly.
Who are you to say what is proper and not?

> A skateboard needs the force of inertia for it them to the way it does
I once accidentally a skateboard.

>Nice ad hominem, if not verbal assault, batman.
I'm don't like to have to pick at trivial errors like this one, but you've done it several times and your stupidity is grating. An ad hominem is an argument of the form "You are crazy, therefore you are wrong." I am saying "You are incoherent, therefore you are crazy." (Maybe. I'm not a shrink. See a real one!)

>>1584857

Thank you for agreeing that time is relative.

Yes, the observed lifetime of a particle with a known lifetime at rest is dependent on it's velocity relative to the observer, because the rate of decay at rest relative to the particle never changes.

So, if we observe it lasting longer when it is traveling at great speed than it does when at rest, it simply means that time for the particle is passing slower than time relative to us in our "resting" frame of reference.

>>1584910
>Who are you to say what is proper and not?
The laws of reality, physics, years of research and experiments, proof, and science say that.

>An ad hominem is an argument of the form "You are crazy, therefore you are wrong." I am saying "You are incoherent, therefore you are crazy."
No, ad hominems are personal attacks and verbel assaults and abuse against an argumentative opponent, instead of the argument s/he makes. But fleshing out the person's mentality or personalization, you are making attacks against him and completely ignoring or doddling around the argument s/he was making.

There is nothing incomprehensible about the language anyone has used in this thread

>>1584910

Wrong, you're clearly not scholared in the ways of devine fendippitation, praries be to the walrus, who actually is the reincarnate soul of the late paul mcartney, a well known phalluscidal and anal retentive paper back writer.

>>1584762
> You mean the quantum wavefunction that determines the LIKELYHOOD of where you will observe it when you do observe it? The very same wave that even for a single particle interfere with itself and thus make an interference pattern even shot one at a time? Lern sum seye-ens.
See >>1584762

> Check again. Ever heard of the nano-scale? That's huge compared to the scale of electrons.
It's not "infinitesimal."
> Scales smaller then that exist too.
None of them infinitesimal.
> And the rules are a bit different. See video.
Despite what you may hear on a pop-science video, there are not different laws of nature that apply at different scales. While Newton's laws don't work at small scales, that's because they are not a law of nature, but an approximation.

>>1584910
Nothing he has said is incoherent, lrn2english.

And speaking of mental illnesses, suspicion of a person's intent in an argument or his history can be a sign of paranoia. I suggest seeing a doctor.

lol i see what is going on now.

>>1584751

I read about this once in a hitchcocker's guide to the internet where this chick in a miniskirt had too much to drink while writing letters of the chinese alphabet in egyption holograms.

>>1584940
Why did you even quote yourself... Twice?

>>1584951

NO, you can't see what's going on if you haven't listened to that new Justin's Beaver video sex tape where he describes the accreditation of several trade schools that teach the kamasutra among other forms of martial arts.

>>1584917
> Yes, the observed lifetime of a particle with a known lifetime at rest is dependent on it's velocity relative to the observer, because the rate of decay at rest relative to the particle never changes.
Time isn't relative to anything. The lifetime of the particle depends on the particle's velocity. FULL STOP. Now, the observed lifetime is a different matter. That's not the real lifetime; that's what we register on our instruments. To get the true lifetime from the observed lifetime, you would have to correct for several effects due to the observer's motion, which we don't know how to do because we don't know how fast we're moving.

>>1584953
The first quote was supposed to be
>>1584741

>>1584940

>Despite what you may hear on a pop-science video, there are not different laws of nature that apply at different scales. While Newton's laws don't work at small scales, that's because they are not a law of nature, but an approximation.

My mistake for not being clear. I meant that the laws LOOK like they act different on different scales. Turns out that uncertainty is only large enough to make a real difference when what you are measuring is on the smaller-than-nano scale. To get bigger than that, you need more particles, and the more particles to an object, the less uncertain you are about it for given measurements. So, yes, there is a QUANTUM uncertainty (NOT uncertainty because of inaccurate equipment) as to where precisely a thrown baseball IS when you measure its velocity, but that uncertainty is smaller than an atom in distance. So, it LOOKS like the laws are different when you change scale, but they really don't. You just have to look at extreme cases of laws.

When you look at "extreme" cases of quantum mechanic's predictions for how a particle behaves, when it get's big enough to be observed conventionally, QM predicts behavior nearly identical to Newton. So yes, it is an approximation. But, practically, you CANNOT make macro-scale assumptions about quantum scale particles.

>>1584972

Incorrect. It doesn't matter how fast we are moving. It is just how fast the particle is moving relative to use that makes any difference.

>>1584972

Wrong again, once more I shall verse you in the several layers of dietary fever. This cake has lies and delicious, it's also aids and completely fails hard.

I've spent many years reading davinci's code and I can't make heads or tails or even convince my wife to go all the way with the dog.

Stopped reading after
>Physics is deterministic

OP confirmed for retard

>>1584976
Why not just delete and repost it with the corrections? Y'know, like the rest of us?

>>1584926
> No, ad hominems are personal attacks and verbel assaults and abuse against an argumentative opponent, instead of the argument s/he makes. But fleshing out the person's mentality or personalization, you are making attacks against him and completely ignoring or doddling around the argument s/he was making.

> There is nothing incomprehensible about the language anyone has used in this thread

I'm ignoring his/your argument because I don't understand what he was saying. If you understand what he meant by an object being in a force, and can explain it coherently, please do so.

>>1584976

Nope, dinosaurs can't hold water because their arms are too small and are not made of spoons or even ham sandwiches.

We need to discover a new form of television that doesn't require mind altering drugs. Have you found such a place? I'd like to sit and subconsciously spin on it.

>>1584940

You don't know what a law of nature is if you say newton's laws are not laws.

>>1584533
WTF /sci/?

>>1584533
>>1584539
>>1585001
>>1584990
>>1584988
>>1584983

>>1585011

I have calls of nature, somebody called the law once, but I told I'm I was a foriegn diplomat from the third world country of Texas and everything was covered in tumbleweed.

>>1585001
A force or energy can move, deform, change, power, break, etc. objects depending on how they react to each other. That's pretty much it to it, basically what you can read from the laws of thermodynamics, conversation of energy, and so on. I don't see how that's hard to understand.

>>1584972

> Time isn't relative to anything.
It is relative to how I measure it from where I'm standing.

>The lifetime of the particle depends on the particle's velocity. FULL STOP.
That depends on what you mean by lifetime, which I'm about to look into. The way I think you mean it, you're probably completely wrong.

>Now, the observed lifetime is a different matter. That's not the real lifetime; that's what we register on our instruments. To get the true lifetime from the observed lifetime,
Whoa-ho-ho! So how do you know that it's "not real"? So we cannot trust what measurements we get? I'm not going to go into how dumb that is. I'll give you the benefit (which isn't a benefit) of listening to the rest of your sentence.

> you would have to correct for several effects due to the observer's motion,
You mean like the Lorentz transform does? Which allows you to change between frames of reference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

>which we don't know how to do because we don't know how fast we're moving.
Or I could use my speed relative to the particle I'm observing and GASP! use that as my velocity.

>>1585028

>>It is relative to how I measure it from where I'm standing.

That makes no fucking sense. Time is a dimention that we use to measure other things. You can't measure a dimention. That's completely ridiculous.

>>1585027

I often find masturbation pleasing to the eye, especially while in a low orbital space cruiser. My telescopes have tiny knobs, so tiny I can't fathom having to adjust them, so I spend my nights looking at the sun.

I am very satisfied by chuck wagons.

>>1585035

What does a ruler do? Measure the dimension of length, no?

>>1584979
> So, yes, there is a QUANTUM uncertainty (NOT uncertainty because of inaccurate equipment) as to where precisely a thrown baseball IS when you measure its velocity, but that uncertainty is smaller than an atom in distance.
The claim that said uncertainty is a limitation on reality and not on measuring precision is often repeated by scientists, but has no basis in experiment, nor could it. That line of thinking, when carried out to its final conclusion, leads to the nonsensical claim that even macroscopic objects have a large intrinsic uncertainty in their position, until we look at them, at which point the uncertainty magically goes away. This is nonsense. The only uncertainty is in your knowledge of the position.

I am a gigantic faggot, please wrap my feces.

>>1585047

No, no it does not. It compares the lengths of two objects. It just so happens that you know the length of one of them in a man made unit.

You cannot irectly measure length, only relatively through different objects/systems.

>>1585001
>I'm ignoring his/your argument because I don't understand what he was saying.
That's more-or-less your fault in this case.

>>1585028

You're absolutely correct, I'm sorry to have made this thread.

Thank you for your time.

>>1585028
> So we cannot trust what measurements we get?
Naively assuming that every measurement we make directly reflects reality would be stupid. Do you think that the classic pencil in the glass of water is really bent?

> You mean like the Lorentz transform does?
Yes, that is the correct mathematical expression.

>>1585061
>implying the creation of an arbitrary unit of measure somehow means that we aren't measuring length directly

>>1585027

Right, I was wrong this whole time.

>>1585011
No one knows what the laws of nature are. That's why we have science.

>>1585077

You aren't. You are measuring the relative difference in length between two objects. One is a metre stick, the other is the object.

sage this shit please. we've all had our fun trolling.

God is a fraud.

Jesus had tiny woman hands.

Prairies be to the walrus who finds them.

>>1585092

That's what we call measuring the spacial dimension of length, bro.

>>1584613
>>1584593
>photons and forces accumulate one into another
>uses energy and force interchangeably

Man, if you even just took grade 11 physics you'd know the difference between force and energy, and that force and matter cannot be converted into one another

>>1585027
So (if I am interpreting you correctly) an object is "in" a force if the force acts on the object? If this is what was meant, then

>>1584667
>An object's presence would entirely depend on the verse, dimension, force, and frequency (if string theory is correct) it is in.

only makes sense if he is talking about presence at a particular location, because this is what depends on what forces act on an object. But that would have nothing to do with the topic, which was if something can come from nothing, not how something can come from somewhere else.

>>1584988
Can you demonstrate that it isn't? It's often said that quantum mechanics incorporates a random element, but this is only true in interpretations of the theory in which the probability distribution of an observable changes when someone observes it, which is only natural if the uncertainty is all in your head, but pure motherfucking magic if taken literally. Most of the sensible interpretations are deterministic.

>>1585131
He's arguing that nothingness, literally, cannot possibly exist or ever can. Emptiness maybe, but nothingness is just purely impossible to obtain outside of a perceptive sense.

i.e.: There was never, ever just nothing

>Physics is deterministic.
Wrong. bitches dont know bout my beta/alpha/gamma decay in ma nucleus
>Motion is absolute.
Sure whatever.
>Time is absolute.
Wrong.
>Neither the past nor the future exist.
Wrong. Pull that presentism out of your ass. This is just a grammar fault. The past existed and the future will exist. How bout that stuffism, eh?
>Light waves travel in a medium
O ho ho
>Gravity is a real force
Define real. If by real you mean a gauss, then sure. I could say that whenever this pencil drops God is kicking in with his magnetism.
>The universe began by supernatural means
If you mean superimposed physics combustion, then sure.

OP you are bad at explaining your statements.

A lot of your "philosophical truths" should be elaborated on individually. You can't just blindly list 7 things, expect everyone to agree with them, and than proceed to bluntly tell people they are wrong while occasionally questioning people's sanity.

>>1585199
As I pointed out, that amounts to believing the universe always existed, which brings up some problems. He denied that it implied any such thing, and then started talking nonsense about objects in forces.

>>1585225
It would explain why he finds a lot of the posts in this thread "incoherent" or "hard to understand."

sage

>not science

>>1585217
> bitches dont know bout my beta/alpha/gamma decay in ma nucleus
Beta decay doesn't occur at a random time, just an unpredictable time.

>>1585252

>>1585235
>that amounts to believing the universe always existed
But that's not true. It has nothing to do with universes. It just states that even vast emptiness itself is a thing that actually exists. As stated, vast emptiness itself is

a form of energy or a force of nature. If you somehow managed to place yourself in it and survive, you can find that you can move around it, look around in it's infinite

blackness, and observe it and so on, but there's really nothing there other than the place itself, but the fact you can exist and move around in it proves that it itself is a

form of energy or is a force itself. And as the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, E=mc^2, antimatter develop has shown: over time energy can accumulate and

convert itself into matter, little photons. And once it does, it continues to create slowly by slowly, over years and years just to make a few atoms, and it keeps doing this

for trillions of years continuously, converting itself into matter, as well as matter begins to convert itself into energy of different flavors and behaviors depending on how

they react or how they're born, and so on. And have an amount of time no one can comprehend, it all slowly develops into a universe of it's own, and after another incomprehensible amount of time another universe is slowly developed, perhaps different than the other one.

>>1585302 cont.
And then another universe, and then another, and then another, and

so on until they develop into what we have now. And not only that, there comes a time in which every matter and photons eventually die for trillions and trillions of years

until the vast emptiness begins to convert itself again and redo everything over another incomprehensible amount of time, repeat cycle. And not only that, a big bang happens

when more than one universes collide with each other, releasing/dispelling all of the energy in each one of them and destroying each other, but yet lay the grounds for a new

universe to be born and begin development in there place. Repeat cycle.

Basically to say: universes didn't exist forever, they had to start with one, but that first one likely has developed and died out so long ago when may never even have a word

to describe the amount of time since, but one eventually developed out of emptiness, not nothingness, just emptiness. But existence, itself, has existed forever, otherwise

literally nothing would even be here. And that's the thing true about existence: it's not possible for utter nothingness to occur (empty != nothing)

>>1585302
> vast emptiness itself is a thing that actually exists
1. It's not empty
2. It's part of the universe, even if the only part

>>1585319
Well of course, since it itself is an actual thing. And no, the universes are apart of/within it, not the other way around. In fact, the popular terminology scientists use to describe it is usually "the void-verse."

>>1585324
If the universe is within something larger, then it's not the whole universe. Also, I doubt that "void-verse" is in common usage.

>>1585331
There are more than one universes and dimensions, we've said and proved that countless times over the past few centuries. In fact, the word "universe" (despite still being used) is an oxymoron and inaccurate, and instead we have multiverses instead, some similar to ours and something entirely different, with the only real common factor between them is gravity. In fact, gravity is believed to be being exerted from another dimension on a 1D pathway, so why it works the way it does is still our biggest mystery.

>>1585331
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html

oops...accidentally tripped into /sci/. What a mistake.

sage
please sage this shit now and start posting real-science

>>1585347
you keep forgetting omniverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse

>>1585358

I hear you bro. sage.