/sci/ - Science & Math

Why did you delete the last thread just to make this one? I had a whole response ready and then it 404ed.

By the way, your ideas are as nonsensical as they are retarded.

>>5593101
>Could relativity cause gravity?
What does it mean for a theory to cause a force? Relativity EXPLAINS gravity, if that's what you're asking.

>Like, the movement of a massless particle creating a kind of negative space/field as is rebounds off a mass form?
1. What the fuck is a "negative space"?
2. What the fuck is a "mass form"?
3. Why do you think your idle speculation will bring you closer to the truth? You can look up real experiments and real science if you actually want to learn about reality.

>I can see the same problem as the observer effect being relivant to how their gravitational force is measured, or any gravitational force is measured if this is the case
Clearly you understand neither gravity nor the quantum observer effect. They have nothing to do with each other.

If you mean that gravitational fields are relative . . . thanks, Einstein.

>it would also make the premise for earth to have a fusion core which would account for the excess gravity that earth experiences
All of my wat

Fusion occurs at temperatures far higher than those achieved in the Earth's core. However, fission DOES occur at very low rates which provides some of the geothermal heat (though most of the heat is primordial). And again, what does this have to do with gravity or whatever? The Earth doesn't have "excess gravity," and fusion doesn't create mass anyway.

>not to mention the subterranean civilizations that have been allegedly found come to think of it...
Oh, you're a troll.

>>5593105
Idea, the rest is just fallout from the premise

Dude just hit backspace, Internet Explorers save last typed when the page redirects

But really though doesnt the passing of a ripple in itself make a ripple? If ever so faint and wiped clean by the next ripple- also, the higgs boson could cause a variation of the same principle when interacting with mass outside of particle basis- generating the same effect

>>5593116
>doesnt the passing of a ripple in itself make a ripple?
Yes. In General Relativity, these are called "gravity waves."

>also, the higgs boson could cause a variation of the same principle when interacting with mass outside of particle basis
USE ENGLISH.

You think you are using scientific terminology, but you aren't. You are speaking gibberish. Please try to explain your ideas in a common language, not like a rambling schizoid.


For what it's worth, the Higgs mechanism is not related to GR at all.

>>5593113
Fill in the blanks bud

Photons- they make relativity, explain it, and cause it? imo were deriving to much about gravity from black holes

Just enjoying some ignorant speculation, thanks for the competence and single minded determinism of preconceived thoughts that could possibly have had much wider basis to the finder than was acknowledged in your schooling

no brah, no

>>5593130
>Fill in the blanks bud
That's your job.

>Photons- they make relativity, explain it, and cause it?
No. Photons do not "make relativity," whatever that means. I'm guessing English isn't your first language.

>Just enjoying some ignorant speculation, thanks for the competence and single minded determinism of preconceived thoughts that could possibly have had much wider basis to the finder than was acknowledged in your schooling
You seem absolutely determined to not make sense. Why are you intentionally obfuscating your ideas? Are they so stupid that you are embarrassed to state them plainly?

>>5593125
1: There's no such thing as gravity 'waves' I'm proposing that said actions result in the influxes that are seen in gravitational force

2: Srry an Inverted version of the same principle

idgaf about scientific terminology, if I did I'd speak in latex, but I don't know the field well enough

>>5593142
1: It's a premise, there are multiple things that fufill it

2:
>photons=/=light
lolwut

3: Sorry and you're calling me illiterate?

>>5593145
>There's no such thing as gravity 'waves'
lol, if you say so.

>>5593145
>I'm proposing that said actions result in the influxes that are seen in gravitational force
What "said actions"? Ripples are just a metaphor. Explain SPECIFICALLY what you think causes gravity.

>>5593145
>idgaf about scientific terminology
You don't seem to care about being understood either. In which case you could just as easily mentally masturbate in private.

>>5593154
>>photons=/=light
>lolwut
I never said that. I said that it didn't "cause relativity," whatever the fuck that means.

The theory of special relativity was of course inspired by the constancy of the speed of light, but this isn't a property of photons, it's a property of the universe. Photons are not special here in any sense. All objects have a four-speed of c whether light exists or not.

>3: Sorry and you're calling me illiterate?
Um, no. Presuming you are not illiterate, you can read what I actually wrote, which is that you are intentionally using confusing and convoluted language so as not to be fully understood. It shouldn't be hard to explain your ideas in a way that makes sense.

>>5593168
Read the OP again

>All objects have a four-speed of c whether light exists or not.
The universe is expanding
Every particle in the universe is not expanding
The fact that gravity is nowhere near strongly effect by C gives reason that gravity is itself could be produced by it, as said in the OP

>It shouldn't be hard to explain your ideas in a way that makes sense.
Watered down- I have an idea but you guys know more, thanks for telling me about it, and then, you can't think to fathom that not everything you learned in school is 100% accurate in it's intention of applicable base but the body of knowledge wasnt so complete as to apply them elsewhere, insinuating, you're bad at life for not even considering this

>>5593201
>Read the OP again
No thanks.

>The universe is expanding
correct
>Every particle in the universe is not expanding
correct
>The fact that gravity is nowhere near strongly effect by C gives reason that gravity is itself could be produced by it, as said in the OP
wat

You do know that "c" is the speed of light in a vacuum, right? It is a constant. Gravity can't be "affected by c" (or "effect by C" if you're retarded), because c never changes.

And what do you mean by "it" here? Produced by WHAT? The expansion of the universe? That OPPOSES gravity.

>>5593201
>I have an idea but you guys know more, thanks for telling me about it
You're welcome.

>and then, you can't think to fathom that not everything you learned in school is 100% accurate
Many things I learned in school were utter bullshit. I don't base my understanding of the universe on what any particular person said, but by what the evidence says, or indirectly on the evidence by scientific consensus. What I DON'T do is remain intentionally ignorant about science and sit around at home making up ideas backed by no experiments and then get butthurt when people tell me I'm wrong.

>you're bad at life for not even considering this
lol, considering what? You don't have a theory backed by evidence. You don't even have a hypothesis. You don't even have a coherent idea.

>>5593201
i've been watching this train wreck of a thread since the first one you posted
everything in science is up for reconsideration, but you are the textbook definition of a crackpot theorist

you have to learn the logic behind an argument and how it's applied before you can make inferences based on that logic
you're just guessing at the logic behind a concept, and then trying to distort the logic, which you don't even understand, to support an idea you pulled out of your ass

in indeterminate phrasing no less
this is asinine

Anyone read Erik Verlinde paper on quantum gravity? They've been ripping apart for the last year now, but I think that he's on to something. In our lifetimes I predict that science will find gravity to be a natural result of the existence of mass, therefore not stemming from a particular "god particle" or anything like that. Gravity is what the progression of time "feels" like to those of us with mass.

>>5593314
>Gravity is what the progression of time "feels" like to those of us with mass.
Huh? Thermodynamics is responsible for the progression of time, not gravity.

>>5593314
i don't remember that being part of his theory

>>5593215
[0 Mass(Z)->ZY x Mass amount(Y)]=Gravitational pull or cos-zy^2 which produces gravity to the observer in where the nearness is increasing the 'negative' field in to which other mass reacts

>>5593353
The 'observer' or 'one looking for state' being mass

>>5593322
Thermodynamics IS responsible (as a "law") but we can't actually "feel" the second law, what we feel is the reason behind why the law exists. Gravity is simply why (even in a vacuum) we can't break even.

>>5593328
It's not, that's mine

>>5593353
>[0 Mass(Z)->ZY x Mass amount(Y)]=Gravitational pull or cos-zy^2
I certainly hope you're trolling.

>>5593362
>Gravity is simply why (even in a vacuum) we can't break even.
That's actually not the case. Without gravity, the universe is still expanding (in fact expanding faster), which causes the same problem, and furthermore gravity implies the existence of black holes, which are at maximum entropy (so you CAN "break even").

Let me start here:

Entropy would be considered the truest death of the universe correct?

>>5593378
What do you mean, heat death? I don't see why that's any more plausible than, say, "the Big Rip."

>>5593375
Light creates gravity through negative entropy of its state producing mass pull

>>5593383
I don't mean how reality will end, I just mean that entropy is is death to any system. No more data exchange: death

>>5593391
[citation needed]

>>5593393
Yeah, I guess that's a fair assessment. Entropy is essentially the reason death and suffering must exist.

Please correct the following:

Big bang -> plasma -> mass / energy exchange (we are here) -> entropy (eaten by black holes) -> universal critical mass (eventually black holes meet) Big bang -> start over

Not provable obviously, but plausible?

>>5593407
Because if this model is plausible, gravity becomes the force that literally moves time forward. By exerting force on mass, it eventually gets converted into energy, and to enter a true entropic state there can be no mass in the system, only enerygy right?

>>5593407
It is plausible, and such ideas have been expressed before. One example of such a cyclical model involves two 3-branes separated by a tiny distance slowly oscillating between collapse (when they collide) and expansion (as they separate). On each 3-brane is a "universe," with the mass of the other universe perhaps accounting for dark matter.

But it turns out this is almost certainly wrong, for a number of reasons. Most importantly, lambda-CDM calculations indicate that the universe will never reverse its expansion, but continue accelerating.

>>5593412
What do you mean by "a true entropic state"? A state of maximal entropy? This is simply a black hole.

And gravity doesn't "convert mass to energy". What do you mean by that?

>>5593419
The model doesn't state that the universe would have to stop expanding, in fact it implies that the expansion is exponential

>>5593427
How does the sun create energy? Fusion is the product of gravity in this case, tuning mass (hydrogen) into energy

>>5593439
>The model doesn't state that the universe would have to stop expanding
Which model? This model (>>5593407) requires all the black holes to coalesce, which can only happen in a Big Crunch. Otherwise each successive universe would have just a miniscule fraction the mass of the last.

>How does the sun create energy? Fusion is the product of gravity in this case, tuning mass (hydrogen) into energy
It's the fusion producing energy, not gravity (the gravity is just necessary to produce sufficiently high temperatures and pressures).

Though black holes can effectively turn matter into energy in the very long term. But not every particle will be sucked into black holes; some will be left to decay on their own--if indeed they decay at all.

>>5593457
We really can't downplay gravity in this exchange though. Fusion is the process, but gravity is the force that creates it

>>5593407
>eventually black holes meet
Isn't supported by observation which shows the universe will expand indefinitely.

>>5593470
Fusion doesn't rely on gravity in any sense. Fusion can be produced on Earth, too. Any force that can produce the right conditions will suffice.

>>5593470
Fusion can be done in a lab, gravity is not the cause.
Gravity doesn't change mass into energy. It is the process which creates the conditions under which fusion can take place but it is not the process.

>>5593472
This is the part I need explained to me:

If the universe is expanding, aren't we too expanding within it? Everything is relative, so we wouldn't be able to tell that our electrons are orbiting just a tiny bit farther away every moment right?

>>5593487
>aren't we too expanding within it?
No. The "force" created by the expansion of the universe is minuscule and does not effect bound systems.

And yes we would be able to see changes in the spectra of atoms.

>>5593491
I understand that, what I'm saying is that without our intervening, gravity is the foce that makes stars shine. Fusion is the process, but hydrogen wont just fuse to it's self, it take a lot of force.

>>5593487
Wrong. That type of "expansion" would be meaningless and unobservable.

Atoms ARE pulled apart by dark energy (the force behind the expansion), but only extremely weakly, because they are so small (the rate of expansion is proportional to the distance). This isn't nearly enough to pull them up to the next energy level. Even at the galactic scale, gravity overwhelms dark energy, so galaxies don't get pulled apart. But at the intergalactic scale, the universe is observably expanding, because galaxies are distant enough for the expansion to be strong and gravity to be weak.

>>5593498
This I need to look up I guess. How would we be able to even prove that we're not expanding with it? Every tool we would use to measure would have expanded as well, the change should be completely imperceptible.

>>5593503

Thank you so much, this is the part I have to wrap my head around

>>5593500

Yes but gravity is not converting anything, as has been said, fusion can be caused using powerful magnets. Any force sufficient enough to compact hydrogen atoms togethet will cause fusion, gravity is one of those. Gravity can be responsible for fusion =/= gravity converts mass to energy.

I spend too much time in /b. This is the longest I've gone without seeing someone called a "nigger" or a "faggot"

You guys are awesome.

>>5593513

Makes no sense... Spacial expansion is not strong enough to overcome atmoic bonds or gravity. If it did, we would be able to notice in the spectra of atoms over time, as was stated.

>>5593523

atomic*

>>5593518
I think high quality posts occur at approximately the same speed on both boards, but /sci/ is slow and has a high proportion of good posts while /b/ is fast with a low proportion of good posts.

>>5593513
No there are lots of ways that change could be measured. If the energy levels changed you could for example have that energy absorbed by an electron and determine it's energy.

>>5593101
>not to mention the subterranean civilizations that have been allegedly found come to think of it...
>38 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click here to view.
Jesus christ /sci/ get it together

>>5593513
THINGS aren't expanding, SPACE is expanding. A meter is still a meter--there' are just more of them.

But yes, we would expand along with everything else if there were nothing to resist the expansion. But obviously there are plenty of forces resisting expansion, such as electromagnetism in this case.

>>5593530
The picture I had in my head isn't electrons jumping rings or anything, just that as the universe expands, the actual distance of the rings from the nutron is increased ever so little.
If this happened to everything we wouldn't be able to measure it because our measuring tools have expanded as well. To us everything is the same.

>>5593541
What you are describing is the equivalent of redefining the meter as 500 cm and calling that "expansion." That isn't expansion, just a change of perspective.

That is not what astrophysicists are talking about.

>>5593541
Yes and if they somehow moved out, which they can't that would change the energy levels.

>>5593557
Unless the energy levels changed too, which I think is his point. (They don't, though.)

>>5593546
I think I'm failing to explain myself properly, but you've shown me the properties I need to research/ understand better.
Thank you

>>5593399
>Entropy => Nutty metaphysics

>>5593546

that's basically how metric expansion of the universe works, sorry but you're wrong

>>5593820
>>Entropy => Nutty metaphysics
It's not nutty metaphysics, it's a simple deduction. You can't avoid death without infinite energy.

>>5593823
>that's basically how metric expansion of the universe works
It clearly isn't. You can redefine units all you want without consequence, because all equations would be similarly adjusted. But when the universe expands, this doesn't change the diameters of orbitals, for instance.

>>5593853

It really is. Once you define a unit of measurement, metric expansion changes that unit of measurement.

>>5593861
No it doesn't.

c = 299 792 458 m/s. Always has and always will.

>>5593955
We aren't arguing that, only that if viewed (somehow) from outside the universe, the meter is actually getting longer by the moment. It's a simple bell curve:

Plasma / expansion period was expanding quickly, but not spreading out as fast, now we are expanding, and eventually we'll be separating more than space is expanding, but we'll never "see" the difference 'cause it's relative. It matters only in the evolution of matter in general.

Capcha: 6142 Thisguy

>>5594008
>the meter is actually getting longer by the moment
No it isn't. If the meter were getting longer, then physical constants would change, and the diameter of the universe would not. In fact, we see the exact opposite.

>>5594008
>Plasma / expansion period was expanding quickly, but not spreading out as fast
Um, no. During inflation, the matter within the universe--once created--expanded at the same rate as the universe. And that's still the case for distant objects not gravitationally bound.

>but we'll never "see" the difference 'cause it's relative.
Bullshit. Of course we see the difference. If we couldn't, we wouldn't know it was happening.

>It matters only in the evolution of matter in general.
What the fuck do you mean "in general"? There are many specific ways the expansion matters, such as redshift and (get this) the fact that things are getting further away.

>>5594033
It feels to me like I'm trying to put paragraphs into sentences, and you're assuming I'm just an idiot. I'm trying to wrap my mind around theoretical astrophysics. By dissecting the semantics, we've lost the point.

>>5594033
If I could explain this shit easily I'd be writing my book, not lurking around 4chan.

>>Trying to communicate more efficiently, failling

>>5594059
>>5594064
I'm not assuming anything about either of you, just addressing the actual words in the posts. What else can I do?

Space itself does expand, but the meter does not. You could say that in a sense, the meter actually "shrinks" relative to the whole universe.

This is as opposed to Lorentz contraction, which does work pretty much as you described. That's why from your own reference frame, you can never observe any change, even in principle. In a very real sense, your own reference frame is perfectly valid, and there is no contraction. That cannot be said of metric expansion caused by dark energy, which is easily observable.

>>5594077
I think the poster here is trying to work under the pretense of a single construct model, in terms of the universe, but his logic is flawed in
A: If the universe is expanding then there is an outside and it is not of a stand alone being
B: If the relative area of space in a set vector could be said to be decreasing in it's exact percentage to the rest of the universe then at the 'edge of space' there is something 1: Introducing matter or the mentioned 'plasma' & 2: Being of a Norse Knot of sorts and is immediately transferable the exact opposite of space, in which case any space at all is ever existing as the 0.00..001

Gentlemen, I believe you're in check with no more moves

>>5594676
>single construct model
What does this term mean?

>A: If the universe is expanding then there is an outside and it is not of a stand alone being
That is clearly not the case. It is not necessary for the universe to exist in a higher space for it to expand. Indeed, it isn't even meaningful to discuss the existence of anything not in the universe, since the universe is the totality of existence.

>If the relative area of space in a set vector could be said to be decreasing in it's exact percentage to the rest of the universe
Let's unpack why this makes no sense.
1. There's no such thing as "relative area."
2. You misuse the word "vector."
3. Percentage of what?
4. Why would the area of anything decrease if the universe is expanding uniformly?
>then at the 'edge of space' there is something 1: Introducing matter or the mentioned 'plasma'
5. There is no edge of space, even if the universe is closed.
6. There is no net increase in matter in the universe, and the only increase in mass is from dark energy.
7. I don't think you know what "plasma" means.
8. If there were an "edge of space," it would not be observable.
>& 2: Being of a Norse Knot of sorts and is immediately transferable the exact opposite of space, in which case any space at all is ever existing as the 0.00..001
9. l2grammar
10. If opposite "edges" of space are connected, then they aren't edges at all.
11. You can't put ellipses in a decimal without stating how many digits are skipped.
12. Go fuck yourself.

>>5593840
But that's not why people die at all! I mean, it is a limiting condition but only in the most abstract way, in any practical sense it'd be the least of your worries.

>>5595164
The only practical implication is that nobody will ever live forever. Even society can't exist forever.

>>5595422
The real implication that I was getting at is that DATA can't last forever. I like the implications around "Why are we here?" when viewed from a "conservation of data" standpoint. Matter arranges it's self naturally to create more complex structures (crystalline structures, nanotubes etc.) Life is the next step in that process, and the "purpose" of it all is simply to delay the inevitable approach toward entropy by recycling energy (ecosystems and such).

Don't be mad, I'm claiming stupidity. I'm here to learn from all of you.

>>5594709
>not being able to tie single structure=singularity
That's worse than your shoes man

>that it is not expanding into anything and indeed shrinking
It's not higher space it's an entirely different relativity we never come in contact with it
Also you're making claims with a 'we don't have the tech' error of reference
>Logic as simply Logic is something you are incapable of understanding and would rather name call and argue different programmatic conjectures in variance of notationing than address the point

But I'll humor you
2: As they way I was addressing how space is, no
4: It's not expanding uniformly, mass size does not differ
5: Somewhere along the line C stops being C and does something else. So no.
10: (Metaphor) If I had a bike wheel... [They are not connected in the same way they are being] Seriously 3rd >
>11. You can't put ellipses in a decimal without stating how many digits are skipped.
11: You're trying to say 0.9=1; the mentioned is an implied state, one of uninterrupted status-quo, and yet here we are!

12: Daily

>>5593314
How does gravity 'feel like' the passing of time?
Photons have no mass, but are affected by gravity. If you mean that gravity causes us to move as time passes, that's already how we view general relativity; we move through spacetime, and forces and gravity are the same.

>>5593391
What does that mean? Light doesn't have negative entropy, and if it did, how exactly would that attract mass?

>>5595672
The speed of light is constant. c doesn't stop being c, and if it did, how would that be the edge of the universe?

>>5595742
Well it turns into and rebecomes itself, I mean really who the fuck can say it's an unknown for our lack of things

>>5595753
That makes no sense. What are you even trying to say?
If light changes speed, that doesn't mean it's hit an edge. Like how a car can slow down without having to crash.
Also, here's a picture of metric expansion of space, for those who were arguing about it,

>>5595753
pretty sure this guy is either underage or brazillian

better ban him just to be safe

>>5595757
>pic
Yeah that doesnt happen with particles, gravity undermines it- which I think alot of people are confusing

I never said it changes speed, if anything it relatively increases, I'm trying to say it does something that makes the space 'tangible' to us(or things relative), an extra property or a layer of something like a film at the edges that gives the property of dimensions

bump

>>5595848

in that pic, the raisins are galaxies, which are made of particles, so yes, it does happen with particles

>>5595757
dude that scared me

>>5595672
>That's worse than your shoes man
I have literally no clue what you're talking about. When did I even use the word "singularity"?

>It's not higher space it's an entirely different relativity we never come in contact with it
Um, no. It's not. If you are suggesting there is an "outside the universe," then that implies there is some space including the universe and things not in the universe--i.e., a higher space.

>Logic is as logic does
Didn't I tell you to make sense?

>2: As they way I was addressing how space is, no
Yes you were. You said "the relative area of space is a set vector," which is meaningless. Area vectors are by definition normalized to unit magnitude.

>4: It's not expanding uniformly, mass size does not differ
The universe is indeed expanding uniformly (that's how dark energy works), and mass doesn't have size. You couldn't sound more retarded if you tried.

>5: Somewhere along the line C stops being C and does something else. So no.
First of all, "c" should be lowercase, and second of all, no, it is a CONSTANT, which fact motivates special relativity.

>10: (Metaphor) If I had a bike wheel... [They are not connected in the same way they are being] Seriously 3rd >
I assume you realize this is impossible to read and just don't care.

>11: You're trying to say 0.9=1; the mentioned is an implied state, one of uninterrupted status-quo, and yet here we are!
No, I'm saying that "0.9...9" isn't a real number. However, 0.9...=1 by definition.

>>5595848
>I'm trying to say it does something that makes the space 'tangible' to us(or things relative)
Bro, how can a physical constant "do something"? It's just a number with units, not a goddamn angel or some shit. That's like saying "pi does something that makes circles 'tangible' to us."

>>5595480
But could keep going for an arbitrarily long time if you were desperate. But again, I don't know that it's particularly meaningful. However, you've left me feeling I should read up on entropy in the context of the contracting/expanding universe. Though that might take some time...

>>5596338
Yeah, data storage is a bit more complicated, because technically the information is always still there (black hole weirdness aside). It's just not always there in a usable format.

>>5596299
>When did I even use the word "singularity"?
What I was origionally saying was how your principles would only work in a singularity model, the former was a pun

> then that implies there is some space including the universe and things not in the universe
It would not be space as we know it. Plain and simple- unlike your behaviors I won't even get into your use of 'higher'....

>Didn't I tell you to make sense?
If you can simplify then you have already answered and are avoiding the point, you're doing worse than saying 'my god is better than your god' you're litrally saying 'since you're not using the exact word I would use you're incorrect'
If that's what you want, start samefagging your own bullshit to bump the thread

> Area vectors are by definition normalized to unit magnitude.
Also my post >>5595848
Something makes Vectors, it makes tons of sense.

>4/5
Then there is an edge of the universe unless it is simply being simulated as we look/travel further.
Logic flaw. It may be a constant but gravity still interrupts it to various extents.

>I assume you realize this is impossible to read and just don't care.
Funny, it's called immagination, I figure you atleast have a drop you could squeeze out of yourself to look like a real person instead of some argumentative linguistic animal

>No, I'm saying that "0.9...9" isn't a real number. However, 0.9...=1 by definition.
Then 1(x/%/+/-)∞=0.99... in which case we are not only existing as the 0.0..1 by your definitions but 0.00..0099...99.. which I wont argue with, but even in that case have you betrayed your context and are incorrect in your later arguments

So, you're wrong on the internet, by the rules of imaginary allocations of things to places you are banished from this place and are only to return if you somehow manage to acquire an Internet outside of the Internet, I hear they're traded for sexual favors at most local card or comic book stores

>>5596440
>What I was origionally saying was how your principles would only work in a singularity model
What the hell is a "singularity model"? A singularity is a point of infinite density (e.g. a black hole).

>It would not be space as we know it.
You do understand that space is a mathematical concept in addition to a physical one, right? And anyway, you can't just say it "isn't space," you have to say what it IS.

>If you can simplify then you have already answered and are avoiding the point
I have pointed out every single post that your language isn't just wrong, it's incomprehensible. For instance, what the fuck is a "programmatic conjecture"? What is a "variance of notationing"? I don't just dislike your language, I can't understand it, and nobody else can either. STOP USING WORDS YOU DON'T KNOW.

>Something makes Vectors, it makes tons of sense.
Vectors are mathematical objects, not physical ones. You can't "make" them.

>Then there is an edge of the universe unless it is simply being simulated as we look/travel further.
No. Why would you assume such a thing? The universe can be bounded without having an edge (if it is closed) or it can be unbounded (if it is open). In either case, it can expand uniformly. Your inability to understand this doesn't make it untrue. If you actually bothered to read about this, you would find there are many great explanations out there. Think about it this way: is there any edge to (the surface of) a sphere? Can spheres expand?

(contd.)

>>5596557
>Logic flaw. It may be a constant but gravity still interrupts it to various extents.
If it were "interrupted" then it would not be constant. THAT'S the logic flaw.

It is true that gravity can cause light to appear to move faster or slower than c from some reference frames. This doesn't change the value of c, however. As I already said, c is a property of the universe, not of light.

>Funny, it's called immagination
So you recognize that I don't understand you, and instead of clarifying your position, you prefer to remain ambiguous and insult my inability to get it? You presumably COULD speak plainly, but you just don't. YOU are being the asshole here, and I can't believe you don't realize it.

>Then 1(x/%/+/-)∞=0.99...
wat
(x/%/+/-) is not notation I recognize. Please use your words.
>in which case we are not only existing as the 0.0..1 by your definitions but 0.00..0099...99..
Dude, these aren't numbers. What is "0.0.. 1"? There is no "last digit" of an infinite sequence of digits. If you care about the truth, read here about why 0.999... = 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999......

But of course you don't care about the truth, only your own, ignorant, schizoid suppositions. You really think your incoherent, ill-thought out ramblings might disprove decades or centuries of intense, educated research by tens of thousands of scientists and mathematicians. You are THAT arrogant.

>>5596557
>A singularity is a point of infinite density (e.g. a black hole).
A black hole is not, if it had INFINITE density then we wouldnt stand a moment of resistace
"The Universe exists as a singularity" Is how I meant it.
You're not very intelligent are you?

>you can't just say it "isn't space," you have to say what it IS.
Isnt what I said, it obviously would not be space as we know it, hence not 'space' so to speak, as we wouldnt be quantified in it, It hardly matters do to that sense as there would be so many more calculations involved in it being and could be argued entirely different.
You're not very intelligent are you?

>programmatic conjecture
Relayance of form to relating context made by us
>variance of notationing
The many ways of saying something
Or together
>programmatic conjecture in variance of notationing
Or: Relavance of form to relating context made by the many ways of saying something
You're not very intelligent are you?

>Vectors
1= . , 2= . . , 3= . . .
But you're not very intelligent so you likely won't understand that.

>is there any edge to (the surface of) a sphere? Can spheres expand?
Relatively, No, your point doesnt make sense and proves multiple of mine
You're not very intelligent are you?

>>5596579
'Constant' mean's it does not stop in it's behavior, what interacts with it determines otherwise.
Seriously... like.. wow what that sentence... I mean wow.... Photon=Light='c', not always there but their limits & max's are as I just noted.

>You presumably COULD speak plainly, but you just don't. YOU are being the asshole here, and I can't believe you don't realize it.
Precision in places irrelevant to the discussion which you decide to focus on simply helps me outline your position in science.

>
Do you even logic? All those relations to 1 equal what I said.
Funny eh? I've never read it anywhere but hey w/e

Truth is entirely subjective
Plants with healing properties?
They bond with foreign cells and open them up to absorption by the body.

Hardly healing, from our definition, eating your enemy is.

>>5596579
'Constant' mean's it does not stop in it's behavior, what interacts with it determines otherwise.
Seriously... like.. wow what that sentence... I mean wow.... Photon=Light='c', not always there but their limits & max's are as I just noted.

>You presumably COULD speak plainly, but you just don't. YOU are being the asshole here, and I can't believe you don't realize it.
Precision in places irrelevant to the discussion which you decide to focus on simply helps me outline your position in science.

>
Do you even logic? All those relations to 1 equal what I said.
Funny eh? I've never read it anywhere but hey w/e

Truth is entirely subjective
Plants with healing properties?
They bond with foreign cells and open them up to absorption by the body.

Hardly healing, from our definition, eating your enemy is.

>>5596606
>A black hole is not, if it had INFINITE density then we wouldnt stand a moment of resistace
It has infinite density, not infinite mass. That's the definition of a singularity.

(To be clear, the black hole as a whole--the whole volume within the event horizon--has finite density. But all of the mass is in a single point called the singularity.)

>"The Universe exists as a singularity" Is how I meant it.
The universe did exist as a singularity . . . at the Big Bang.

>Isnt what I said
You never said WHAT it is, just that it isn't "space as we know it".

>Relayance of form to relating context made by us
That's not much better. "Relayance" isn't a word either.
>The many ways of saying something
OK, this actually makes sense.
>Or: Relavance of form to relating context made by the many ways of saying something
I take it you don't speak English.

>1= . , 2= . . , 3= . . .
Those aren't vectors. Those are periods.
These are vectors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28mathematics_and_physics%29..

>Relatively, No, your point doesnt make sense and proves multiple of mine
It absolutely does not prove your point. It proves that it is not necessary for something to have an edge if it is expanding. l2analogy

>>5596615
>'Constant' mean's it does not stop in it's behavior, what interacts with it determines otherwise.
No, that's not what it means. A physical constant is a universal, unchanging quantity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant))

>Photon=Light='c'
Nope. Photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic force, and produce the phenomenon of light. c = 299,792,458 m/s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light))

>Do you even logic? All those relations to 1 equal what I said.
Um, OK. If your point was that 0.999...=1, then I agree with you. That has exactly nothing to do with anything else. And 0.000...1 is still not a number.

>Truth is entirely subjective
Bullshit. If truth is entirely subjective, then learning is impossible. Science is impossible. Communication is impossible.

The whole reason we even have science is that we can perform experiments that give the same results anywhere in the universe when performed by anyone. This objective reality is what we are discussing. If you want to ditch objective reality, then we have nothing to talk about.

>Plants with healing properties?
This sounds more than a little off topic.

>>5596624
>
Density+Amount=Mass=Weight
If it has infinite density then amount is irrelevant, and no. 2: We're talking about effectively qualia ffs
But space as we know it can be considered of such density in the way of how a curve is in relative to a singularity, but at the same time are the many different kinds of 0.00..01 that compose us.

>You never said WHAT it is, just that it isn't "space as we know it".
We would be less than a singularity outside our universe just stand alone.
.

>
why is this still going on, are you not offended enough to ditch the point? You're acting on false traps to deride your opponent but only making yourself look worse in comparison

>Those aren't vectors. Those are periods.
Those are amounts, what the hell else are things composed of? orite infinities.

>It absolutely does not prove your point.
It is not expanding to what is external to it=relativity is composed of 0.0..01's internal, that are simply reaching further, but still being just fine.
L2Logic.

>A physical constant is a universal, unchanging quantity
Still being in the way of the 0.01~

>Um, OK. If your point was that 0.999...=1, then I agree with you. That has exactly nothing to do with anything else. And 0.000...1 is still not a number.
That is HOW 1=0.999, 0.00..01 is determined by the extent of forces. You're accepting the fact while I'm trying to discuss an aspect that incurs the fact, I think, is where we're missing eachother

>Bullshit. If truth is entirely subjective, then learning is impossible. Science is impossible. Communication is impossible.
Truth is whole, Learning is ever partial, science's work within their context, and communication is the fucking pinnacle of subjectivity. If you don't think so you can go travel in Islam territory and find that Asians and English do have a common relative- two entirely different constructs, and yet a balanced medium of interpretation, is it easier to translate through any language instead of straight from the source?

>>5596686
>Density+Amount=Mass=Weight
ha, what? I guess Google Translate isn't doing you much good.
Density = mass / volume

>We would be less than a singularity outside our universe just stand alone.
Why do you continue to use that word when I already showed you you are using it wrong? What do you MEAN by singularity?

>Those are amounts
Fine. Amounts are not vectors.

>It is not expanding to what is external to it
True, because there is no "external to it." It is merely expanding.

>relativity is composed of 0.0..01's internal
wat

>Still being in the way of the 0.01~
Again wat

>That is HOW 1=0.999, 0.00..01 is determined by the extent of forces. You're accepting the fact while I'm trying to discuss an aspect that incurs the fact, I think, is where we're missing eachother
Whatever. What point are you trying to make with these inscrutable lists of digits?

>Truth is whole, Learning is ever partial
Truth is also partial. If it is impossible to ever know the truth, then in what sense does truth even exist? Get rid of this notion of absoluteness and certainty.

>is it easier to translate through any language instead of straight from the source?
That seems to be your problem: translation.

sounds like you guys need a spanking image dump

>>5596700
>Density = mass / volume
Times* typo, gtfo with google, it hardly lives up to its name, still the same point, you're wrong.

>What do you MEAN by singularity?
"exist in a singularity" is my premise of use, as was your utilization of it for your premises that you proposed

>Fine. Amounts are not vectors.
They make them! Why are you not relaying across the entire thread! Or atleast what we have been going on about!

>It is merely expanding.
1: They observe galaxies separating
2: Light is something that is moving them
3: The speed of light is constant but infringed upon by mass, as if it were simply constant we would be coming apart at the seams of our molecules every second.
Seriously.

>
We're in a singularity, all distance or vectors in it can be quantified as a constantly decreasing 0.001 percent of the whole, or 1{slash}0.99...

>Truth is also partial. If it is impossible to ever know the truth, then in what sense does truth even exist?
As the whole.
1.
To how things be-
Never.

>>5596726
>still the same point, you're wrong.
No I'm not. Singularities have infinite density. That's what makes them singularities.

>"exist in a singularity" is my premise of use, as was your utilization of it for your premises that you proposed
But the universe is not a singularity. Singularities are points, while the universe is an extended space.

>They make them!
No they don't. In physics, a vector is an object with magnitude and direction. I suppose you could conflate magnitude with "amount," but not direction. That is precisely what separates vectors from scalars.

>2: Light is something that is moving them
Dark energy is moving galaxies apart, not light.

>3: The speed of light is constant but infringed upon by mass, as if it were simply constant we would be coming apart at the seams of our molecules every second.
Speed can't "come apart." It's just a scalar. That's like saying the number 4 is "coming apart."

>We're in a singularity
Prove it.
>all distance or vectors in it
Distance is a scalar, not a vector.
>can be quantified as a constantly decreasing
Distances are increasing, not decreasing.
>0.001 percent of the whole
In fact, the expansion is far more than 0.001% at large distances.
>or 1{slash}0.99...
1/0.99... = 1/1 = 1.

>As the whole.
>1.
>To how things be-
>Never.
What is this, a fucking haiku?

>>5596743
>No I'm not. Singularities have infinite density. That's what makes them singularities.
Density is relative, that's why I'm saying there is an outside that would give us a perceivable infinite density which can be said as the 0.00..00(.)00..00(anydigits)974... in a comparable to it and be 0.00..005827... on its own, essentially.

>
Okay, lemme get this straight, Physics: Object->Speed->Direction
But the point was they were amounts, nothing more, my point was on their relative quantity

>Speed can't "come apart." It's just a scalar. That's like saying the number 4 is "coming apart."
Not speed, think a ball with area expanding around it gets alot more area in it's expansion of light as you see it just cant be accounted

>Prove it.
You insinuated it, i'm still just arguing for your argument premise
>Distance is a scalar, not a vector.
"Vector in it" ...

>In fact, the expansion is far more than 0.001% at large distances.
0.00...001 Whatever the relative is

1 devide by 0.999= 0.9999=/=1

A fact.

>>5596844
>0.00..00(.)00..00(anydigits)974
Who writes numbers like this? Are you schizophrenic?

Seriously, I am done. It's like talking to a six year old.

what the hell is going on itt

>>5596854
How the fuck do you express infinite fractions in sets of infinities beyond a 0.00..01

>>5596858
Vaslav Nijinsky escaped from the asylum and got on /sci/.

Why wont you people let this thread die.. Its obvious that OP is a high schooler with no understanding of physics....

To bad I can't sage on my phone.

>>5596868
It's beyond the point now

>>5596868
>high schooler
You give him too much credit.

Seriously, try to read his last few posts. There is no way he doesn't have some substantial derangement.

>>5596871
Aside from the typos please point them out

>>5596872

None of what you type is coherent. You string together random numbers and words into a conglameration of shit. You may as well bang your head against your keyboard, the end result will be more legible than the drivel your typing.

>>5596872
>there is an outside that would give us a perceivable infinite density which can be said as the 0.00..00(.)00..00(anydigits)974... in a comparable to it and be 0.00..005827... on its own, essentially.

>1 devide by 0.999= 0.9999=/=1

>if [the speed of light] were simply constant we would be coming apart at the seams of our molecules every second.

>Density+Amount=Mass=Weight

>Seriously... like.. wow what that sentence... I mean wow.... Photon=Light='c', not always there but their limits & max's are as I just noted.

>Plants with healing properties?
>They bond with foreign cells and open them up to absorption by the body.

>>Vectors
>1= . , 2= . . , 3= . . .
>But you're not very intelligent so you likely won't understand that.

And so on, for the entire thread.

>>5596876
lihgou7ird6stugHBvlcuofducxkyoi;d7d/ucluod

i c wut u men

i cunseed

'Conglameration of shit'- >>5596876

Really though, what it wrong with the premise that a peice of a world/star/space couldnt just be summed as something exactly determinable by a 0.00...00052352~? I can't find a single flaw with it logically, and you dancing around it simply adds to the point that you cant refute it, which seems to be the only thing you want to do, instead of fit a something as a relative part of something which I can only assumed you would do as someone of knowledge(?)

>>5596887
It's hard to see flaws with physical ideas when you don't understand physics.

>>5596880
>
>>5596887
>
You were wrong, that is correct
Shall I start a 0.99 thread to make my point?
>
typo, corrected I might add, and it refuted your point
>
You were using the terms of constant's incorrect

>Plants
>Not of molecular composition
>not doing exactly what I said or of the like

VECTORS ARE SUMMED BY NOTATION
CONTEXT.
OP, no, that WAS the entire thread and ffs ^

>>5596887

>>5596890
It's not a physical idea it's a semantic of mathematics.

>>5596069
>>5596069
The raisins aren't expanding
Also you can't use analogies as arguments, only demonstrations

>>5593101
Your thinking of special relativity, general relativity already explains gravity.

>>5597284
There's no such thing as gravity. Just dark energy. Expansion of empty space results in compressed space growing closer together as the space in between the compressed space doesn't grow as fast as the space further away. We humans think of gravity as an independant attractive force exerted by mass when it is the lack of spatial expansion. The more mass, the more the compressed space, and therefore the faster other matter moves to toward it.

>>5597333
So OP is correct? If not in exactly the way described but in form of it?

>>5598272

So fucking wrong it hurts to read it. Why the ever living fuck is this thread still alive. Jesus Christ /sci/. Just stop...

>>5597333
But that's fucking wrong. Gravity and dark energy both warp space, but in opposite ways. Your explanation cannot explain why moving bodies warp space far more rapidly than dark energy can operate. It certainly can't explain black holes, which are an infinite distortion of space.

Imagine you were learning Mandarin and you said "I only want to talk about Mandarin in English; please don't use any Chinese characters" trying to talk about physics without math is just as bad.

Here's the only equation where gravity and electromagnetism couple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations_in_curved_spacetime#Electromagnetic_displacement

>>5598375
>>5598375
Not poster but
'Dark energy' could be a conglomeration of a hole bunch of different forces
&2: Black Holes explain themselves, in relative to that explanation it's compressing space even more, about cc more pressure than the expansion rate would give space.

See pic? He's raising his gravitational pull on his hands by disrupting electron movement in his body thus making it a more solid composite to space and simply distorting it to the state of vibration, which is then released as a ka-meha-meha, that being said it's only being done by the fact that reality is of a sequenced manor and Gohan is actually taking the regular flow of particles out of their frame causing a ever higher gravitational state as the robot computer mind existence is in tries to A: Accommodate for the disruption by increasing the pull of the flinging particles and B: Complies with it's place and time and continues with normal operating sequence- these things resulting in an exponential increase that causes the disruption to magnify at the rate that it does.

Of which is of the same result that is incurred by a massless particle coming away from something

A) Space is expanding
B) particles must exist with space inbetween them
C) therefore the space between particles is expanding.
D) objects are made of particles
E) therefore, objects are expanding
F) the meter is based off of the distance which light can travel in a vacuum
G) since light stays the same speed, but must take longer time to from from point A to point B after expansion, the meter gets smaller relative to objects.
H) objects are all we can use to make observations
Therefore, the meter is getting smaller and smaller according to our instruments as time goes on.

>>5598662
It's unchanging at that level of things, the only place expansion really goes on is at the edge of existance and the ungodly distance between galaxies complying with that

>>5598673
If it's happening at cosmological distances, and if it's happening uniformly, then it's happening at local distances.

>>5598662

Sweet baby Jesus, all of the retarded lurkers are spilling out of the woodwork's for this thread.

A meter is a form of measurement invented long before light was measured in a vacuum. A meter will ALWAYS be a meter, regardless of how much space expands. A light year of space coming into existence does not change the quantity of a meter, it means there are simply more meters in space.

The space in between objects is indeed expanding, but they are held together locally by various other forces. Electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, etc all overpower spacial expansion and prevent objects from expanding locally. Objects are not expanding, they are held together by there respective forces. Galaxies are not expanding, they are held together by gravity.

We can observe spacial expansions effect on light waves traveling at cosmological distances via the red shift of said light waves. If atoms expanded in the same way, we could tell by observing the spectra of said atoms over time.

Please, please, just leave. Go read a fucking book and do yourself a favor.

>>5598695
If space is expanding, and there's a definition independent of that expansion, then we will measure the same unit as being smaller unit over time.

>>5598662
>A) Space is expanding
True.
>B) particles must exist with space inbetween them
If you mean "There is space between particles," then this is true.
>C) therefore the space between particles is expanding.
True, the space between particles is expanding, but this will lead to a mistake in your reasoning.
>D) objects are made of particles
True.
>E) therefore, objects are expanding
False. This does not follow from your premises. Consider an object made of two particles that are not very far apart--e.g. on scales less than a meter. The space between the particles is expanding, but only very slightly, since the particles are not far apart. There's not much "space" between the particles, so the expansion is negligible. Meanwhile, the particles might be moving towards each other. So the object can get smaller, not larger, if the speed that the particles approach each other (which can be big) is faster than the rate of expansion of space between them (which is tiny).

The rest of your argument is based off of this premise, and is thus fallacious.

>>5598712

You really are an aspie.

>If space is expanding
>And theres a definition of measurement independent of that expansion
>Then we will measure the independent unit dependently on that expansion

The whole point is that a meter is independant of how much new space comes into existence you fucking pleb.

10/10 if your a troll. Bravo you faggot.

>>5598712
No, we'll always measure the unit of distance the same, by definition. What we'll measure to change is the size of things large enough to be significantly affected by the expansion of space. Things like the distance between distant galaxies. This is exactly what we do measure, so that works out.

Any error in calibration of the meter due to the expansion of the universe will be minute. The size of the universe is is nearly 100 billion light years. If that size increases by 1 light year, the size of a meter will be increased by only a factor of 1/100 billion. The rate of expansion of the universe is given by the Hubble constant, and is about 74 km/s/million parsecs. So in a year's time, the space in 1 meter will expand to a size of 1meter + 8*10^-11 meters.

The time it takes a photon to travel 1 meter is 3.3 ns. In that time, the expansion of space maps a meter to 1+7*10^-29 meters--an error of less than a billion Planck lengths. So even if the expansion of space caused an error in our measurement of the meter, it would be much less error than we could ever detect. Furthermore, if we could detect it, we could correct for the error by measuring the Hubble constant and using it to correct for our measurement's error.

>>5598677
No! Photons do not have that kind of sway on mass, they just don't, unless there is not enough mass to to say otherwise a photon will always be masses bitch

>>5598628
This has to be wrong