/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9740615
>>>/x/

Yes, that "model" has been known to be incorrect for almost a century now. It has been superceded by the model of quantum mechanics. Learn science before trying to criticize it.

>>9740615
They do use this one on the big bang theory, so it should be correct

>>9740615
The "balls on rings" model of the atom is what we call a lie to children. It's a simplification that is objectively wrong, but which provides a satisfying explanation for people who don't need deeper knowledge of the reality of the situation.

>>9740628
What is that meant to be showing?

>>9740655
There's like five different definitions for an electron, no one has any idea what's going on.

>>9740669
Probability density for electron positions when the electron is in a given orbital state.

Basically, the brighter a spot is the more likely you are to find an electron there, and the different shapes correspond to different energy levels.

The orbital states correspond to the "shells" in the old theory, but the big thing here is that quantum mechanics predicts them EXACTLY.

>>9740674
>quantum mechanics predicts them EXACTLY
lol you are naive

quantum mechanics predict them exactly only for the hydrogen atom with no neutron
for all other atoms and configurations science is completely clueless

>>9740674
Exactly only for an atom with one election

>>9740674
So what exactly is the electron then?

>>9740679
>>9740681
>Predicting the hydrogen atom exactly isn't a big deal

>>9740684
But what are you predicting? I don't understand.

>>9740683
It's a fundamental particle, probably. What that means depends on how deep you need to go in the theory. All we really have are some high-precision theories describing what electrons do, and to really do physics it's sometimes necessary to be content with that and not get hung up on what something "really is"

>>9740691
It predicts the energy levels that it's possible for the electron to be in. This, in turn, decides what wavelengths of light can be absorbed and emitted by it.

>>9740693
>it's sometimes necessary to be content with that and not get hung up on what something "really is"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
If you have no idea what it is, then all your ideas can be null.
>This, in turn, decides what wavelengths of light can be absorbed and emitted by it
Are you sure it's doing exactly that? Even the small idea of an electron being massless ruins the idea of energy.

>>9740674
So the electrons do “orbit” the nucleus just not in neat rings?

>>9740615
You're about 100 years late buddy

>>9740700
>If you have no idea what it is, then all your ideas can be null.
You have no idea how science works, do you?

>Are you sure it's doing exactly that? Even the small idea of an electron being massless ruins the idea of energy.
Yes, a century of experimentation confirms this. Also electrons aren't massless.

>>9740704
Each electron orbital is a static solution to the Schrödinger wave equation. This means that in each orbital, the electron density is static around the nucleus. But some of those static solutions have intrinsic orbital momentum, which is codified in a rotating phase shift.

>>9740714
CAN be null. It's the equivalent of making all sorts of peanut models without cracking the shell.

>>9740700
Ok, let's take it from the ground up.

How do you know that something exists if your stupid human organs can't see it?

Well, you make a device that can see the thing and put that information somewhere your dumb eyes can see it.

Now, the device is telling you that some processes make a thing that has an electric charge of -1.602 * 10^19 C, and a mass of 9.109 * 10^-31 kg. These things show up consistently.

What are the things? Well, you can't look directly at them, so you'll have to figure that out by seeing how they interact with other things.

After a few centuries of trying to figure the things out, you have a detailed mathematical model that predicts what will happen when you put the thing in any situation you're able to.

You know what makes the thing, you know what destroys the thing, you know how the thing moves, you know how the thing makes other things move.

Do you know what the thing is? You could absolutely argue that you don't "know" what the thing "is," like a navel-gazing philosopher so far up his own ass he can't know if the outside exists, but you have a pretty fucking good idea of how a fucking electron works.

>>9740732
Do you though? Or are you just making all the wrong assumptions?

How is that charge measured? What about the mass? What even is mass?

If we pump something full of electrons, will it get heavier?

>>9740738
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Discovery_of_free_electrons_outside_matter

Like this.

>>9740732
Well done.

>>9740738
>>9740742
Unless the fundamental assumption "You can figure out how things work by looking at how they work" is wrong, of course, but you'd have to be incredibly postmodernist to even consider that.

>>9740704
basically in quantum mechanics, you learn that when a particle is not being measured, it has a certain probability of being in a bunch of different locations. So instead of defining an "orbit" for the election, you have a cloud of probability density.

The configuration of these probability clouds around the nucleus are these: >>9740628

These mathematically come from the solution to the schrodinger equation for a spherical potential

>>9740738
Your rethoric has devolved to the level of a two-year old asking "Why?" after every sentence.

>>9740655
>provides a satisfying explanation for people who don't need deeper knowledge of the reality of the situation.
The real problem with this comfortable lie is that it fosters the idea that the sub-atomic world should be described in terms of analogies to macroscopic objects.
"the electron is a particle!"
"the electron is a wave!"
And no, it doesn't just affect children who are destined to grow up to be plumbers and garbage men, the whole Copenhagen interpretation (and several others) are based on very intelligent, well-educated, even cutting-edge physicists insisting there must be some macroscopic "common sense" mold we must force the sub-atomic world into.

>>9740732
Bravo!

>>9740755
It's a bit of a conundrum though, because we've decided as a society that kids should know about atoms, but we can't go up to a room full of 12-year-olds and start off with spinor fields.

Hell, I'm currently slogging through group theory because of spinor fields, and I'd say if you want to permanently turn every kid in the world off physics, you just show them group theory.

>>9740754
If you think you're smarter than a two-year old asking why, they you're not smart at all.

>>9740738
Yes, something pumped full of electrons would get heavier.
Not only do the electrons weigh something but if you were adding ONLY electrons it would take an incredible amount of energy to keep them confined. That energy also weighs something.

To give you an idea of just how hard it is to isolate electric charges, if you dismantled a penny and put all the electrons in New York and the rest of the copper atoms in California, the two halves would try to re-unite with a force of several billion tons! Either one of the masses (positive or negative) would blow up like an H-bomb if unconfined.

How are electrons weighted?
Millikan oil drop experiment. Millikan found oil droplets could me suspended against gravity by giving them an electric charge. The charge came in integer units. A single drop could have 1, 2, or 3 excess electrons but never 1.5
So he had the charge of a single electron.
When a beam of electrons are shot through electric and magnetic fields, their path curves. Since their charge is known and their speed is known, the radius of curvature tells you the mass of individual electrons.

There have been tens of thousands of experiments and millions of devices built which rely upon those "assumptions".
If you've "better" assumptions, state them now or forever be quiet until you've learned more.

>>9740768
Getting smart means you've learned how to ask intelligent, precise, thoughtful, interesting and useful questions. Sometimes that's a simple "why?", though more often it's not.

>>9740753
Why exactly is there any probability and what does any of that have to do with the precedence of measurement?

>>9740778
because quantum objects behave differently when they're measured, don't ask why nobody really knows. But you can model it mathematically

what you need to know is that basically there is this cloud where the electron might be. And we have a probability density to model this. So for example the electron is 10 times more likely to be measured in one location than another.

>>9740767
You're right, I'm sure.
But I've always had a chip on my shoulder about what I see as a big cultural problem in physics, especially as related to QM.
The kind of pedantic, borderline Asperger's student that always wants every question to have a precise, mathematical, 100% reproducible solution isn't going to go into biology, or even chemistry.
Instead, they're drawn to physics, mostly because we still teach children what amounts to classical physics.
Then what happens when we get to the part of the book where physics itself doens't always have precise, mathematical, 100% reproducible solutions?
These are the people that come to /sci/ to insist there's no such things as electrons, time, gravity, etc.

>>9740775
But now the energy weighs something too. That sounds strange to me considering.

>the two halves would try to re-unite
Would they? Are or they already intrinsically bound by something other than a vague definition of a 'strong' force?

>Millikan found oil droplets could me suspended against gravity by giving them an electric charge
Hang on, that doesn't sound right either, we were just talking about mass of these particles.

The second part is also defining what a field even is and why it acts on electrons. No use telling people the particle just 'bends'.

>>9740782
>quantum objects behave differently when they're measured, don't ask why nobody really knows.
Wait...
Honest question: How do we know how they behave when they aren't being measured?
I've always thought it came down to this:
>>9740726
>. It's the equivalent of making all sorts of peanut models without cracking the shell.
-OR-
>>9740693
>sometimes necessary to be content with that and not get hung up on what something "really is"

>>9740782
Okay, that's fine. But you have to define something here eventually.
You have to figure out what the cloud is, what the particle is, why conscious observation would even have an effect.

>Don't ask why
There's the age old caveat with all this isn't it.

>>9740805
>why conscious observation would even have an effect.
Nobody said conscious observation was relevant. Measurement has an effect, consciousness has nothing to do with this.

>>9740795
>there's no such things as electrons, time, gravity, etc
But they're right Anon. Especially about time.

>>9740804
The idea that you can understand something without actually understanding it is asinine. It means nothing because you enable your reasoning to just go with whatever.

>>9740804
>How do we know how they behave when they aren't being measured

Stop measuring them for a bit, then measure them again and see if anything's changed.

The double-slit experiment is an example of a creative way to get some unmeasured behavior.

>>9740805
I've talked to top level professors at my university and nobody really has a good explanation, they will even tell you this. Feynmann himself didn't even have a good explanation, he just said "that's the way it is"

You can model it precisely mathematically, in mathematical terms it makes total sense.

>>9740812
Except that that experiment doesn't exist. The detector variant. Just like this Anon said >>9740806

>>9740805
>, why conscious observation would even have an effect.
Skipping the /x/ part of your post...


>>9740805
>You have to figure out what the cloud is, what the particle is
At some level (and I'm not sure we're there yet), we'll get to the center of the onion. There just won't be any more layers, no more internal mechanisms.
At SOME level, we'll have to hit the point where "it just does what it does because that's what it does", no matter how much that rubs your autistic little fur the wrong way.

>>9740804
>Honest question: How do we know how they behave when they aren't being measured?
Well, you have this wave equation which perfectly predicts the probabilities of all possible outcomes of an experiment. These waves do everything you expect a wave to be able to do, like diffract around corners, contructively/destructively interfere with one another, exhibit uncertainty through fourier transforms, etc. But when you perform a measurement, you get one and only one outcome.

All we can say is that this wave function description combined with its collapse upon measurement describes every experiment perfectly, even if we don't exactly know what that wave function is.

This video might help.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7bzE1E5PMY

>>9740811
see:>>9740815

>>9740813
Mathematics is a measurement of physicality. It's not a language/tool ingrained into existence, it's arbitrary.
If you can't model it physically and understand it, then you can't model it completely mathematically.

>>9740814
>Shoot particles through slits
>Until they hit a detector, they aren't being measured
>You can infer things about their unmeasured behavior based on the distribution of results when you do measure them

M8 we literally did a double-slit experiment with lasers in my high school physics class.

>>9740815
How about just understand them now and stop waiting for some godsend in science?

>I-I can't figure out what the atom is
>T-There's something deeper, I-It's just not known yet

>>9740821
You did a refraction experiment.There is no measurement part of the experiment, it doesn't exist. Consciously (as the YouTube yahoos like to infer) or mechanically.

>>9740693
The things you are stating are highschool level. If you truly believe you aren't preaching to the choir, then you're either an underdeveloped adult, or a teenager. The model is insufficient at best

>>9740833
>How about just understand them now and stop waiting for some godsend in science?
Sure, see:
>>9740815
> I'm not sure we're there yet

But I'm still pretty confidant that we'll EVENTUALLY get to the "end of the book".

>>9740858
And the person I'm stating them to seems to be preschool-level, which is why a simplification is necessary.

>>9740858
The model is irrelevant when everything is an unknown aside from forces.

>>9740839
You look at da pretty pattern on da wall.
Which is akin to measuring the intensity of light, you fucking moron.

>>9741008
Wow...
Not him, but just...
...wow.

>>9741052
It's not a very precise measurement, but it does fit the bill for a "measurement" in the QM sense, since the photons interact with something in the end.

>>9740801
1) Mass is energy and vice versa. A chunk of iron weighs (masses) more when heated, even though it contains the name number of atoms. A wound-up spring is heavier than an un-wound spring. The differences are un-noticeably small in everyday life.
But they're quite real.
Ask any resident of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

2) Not the "strong force". That's something else entirely. It's the electrostatic force. Transfer just a couple of electrons between a glass rod and a silk handkerchief and the rod will pick up bit of paper and crumbs. The electric force is STRONG. We never see severe deviations from neutrality (one gram of "excess" electrons in a single place) because no possible insulation can hold unlike charges of that magnitude apart.

3) Millikan wasn't measuring the mass of the electrons. He was determining the charge of a single electron by balancing the force it exerted against a known weight.
A electron moving through a magnetic field curves and the radius of curvature depends on the field strength, the particle speed, the charge on the particle, and the mass of the particle. We know 3 of those and can compute the 4th.

>>9741150
I was about to say one gram isn't much, but then I remembered we are talking about electrons.

>>9740732
Best post in this thread
>>9740738
Contrarian fucking pseud, please >>>/kys/

>>9740820
Why and what are two very, very different matters scientifically.
As long as you can`t point out any fudamental error with the math used itself (that is, prove it to be either completly wrong or at the very least incomplete) you will just have to accept it, since as of now it fits the experiments done perfectly.

>>9740801
>But now the energy weighs something too.
e=mc2 you fucking retarded brainlet

This thread is fairly pathetic even for sci, how people are so uninformed on almost science that is almost a century old and is the most tested theory ever is astounding. Reading the wiki would be better than some of these posts.

>>9740732
>Well, you make a device that can see the thing and put that information somewhere your dumb eyes can see it.

>using your dumb eyes to construct a machine that can "see" better"
That's like saying a bunch of blind people make a machine that can see so they can look at what it's seeing. It doesn't work like that. This is literally an "Allegory of the Cave" scenario.

>Now, the device is telling you that some processes make a thing that has an electric charge of -1.602 * 10^19 C, and a mass of 9.109 * 10^-31 kg. These things show up consistently.
Congratulations, it now knows your language of "mass" and "math". You have made a dumb human-like machine. What now?

>What are the things? Well, you can't look directly at them,
>so you'll have to figure that out by seeing how they interact with other things.
>by seeing how they interact with other things.
Oh I'm sorry, did I just here a hint of rationality? "Other things" have to be required...meaning there is no "elementary" anything.

>You know what makes the thing, you know what destroys the thing, you know how the thing moves, you know how the thing makes other things move.
But you just said that you can only do that by making "the thing" interact with other "things". You're not "seeing" anything, you're creating coherent motion.

I would love to hear your explanation of how an electron microscope works. Could you also clarify why everything that is viewed through an electron microscope must be sputter coated in gold first?

>You could absolutely argue that you don't "know" what the thing "is," like a navel-gazing philosopher so far up his own ass he can't know if the outside exists, but you have a pretty fucking good idea of how a fucking electron works.

It's all rational you moron (i.e nothing is "real" on its own). Also we have no clue how an electron works because they (and every invented magical fairy tale particle) don't exist. Oil drops, an electromagnet and human measurements? Really that's proof?

>>9740679
>completely clueless
for how fucking stupid a method the approximation is, it works exceedingly well. who the fuck would have guessed you can predict stuff about fucking Aluminum by more or less having a shit on of Hydrogen wavefunctions mashed together. It's so stupid but its still a good approximation

>>9740732
good man

>>9741688
Ok, since you're not buying my definition of "seeing" with a machine, how about this:

Some guy comes up to you and says he has an invisible volleyball cannon. You happen to be at a volleyball court. Skeptical as you are, you ask him to prove it. He shoots his invisible volleyball cannon at the net. It bounces around with an amount of energy that would imply that it was just hit by a volleyball fired from a cannon. Does this imply that the cannon fires something that has at least some of the properties of a volleyball?

>>9740679
>>quantum mechanics predicts them EXACTLY
>lol you are naive
True, the plain vanilla QM orbitals that they posted aren't even exactly correct for basic hydrogen (relativistic corrections, finite size of proton correction, etc)

>for all other atoms and configurations science is completely clueless

>implying perturbation theory doesn't exist
You are legit retarded

>>9741688
>Electrons don't exist
But something acting exactly like we would electrons expect to act from decades of experimentations does exist.
If that something isn't an electron, what is it?
As was said already, point something out that proves the current assumptions wrong instead of complaining that they don't fit your idea of how the world should work. Your hurt feefees aren`t relevant here.

Alert the internet!!
We gotta guy with a C in high school chemistry over here!

>>9741688
> Could you also clarify why everything that is viewed through an electron microscope must be sputter coated in gold first?
That isn't true at all, are you just making shit up now?

>>9741443
>If I clap for an opinion, it's right!

t. American

>>9741473
>E=mc^2

The equation doesn't even meant anything. Mass has no quantifiable definition, the speed of light is variant,, and energy has no definition.

>>9741656
>Dude just read Wikipedia
Haha, cool man.

>>9741839
You need to coat the object in a conductive material. That should be the hint you need into what the 'electron' is.

>>9741894
I like how you got every single statement in there as wrong as possible.

>>9741802
Think about it in a different sense, move away from particles in your mind.
Look at something like the photoelectric effect and really try to analyse in your OWN terms. Simplify is as much as you can in your head, see what you come up with.
You'll instantly want to jump to the known theories, don't do it, assume they dont exist.

>>9741923
>Photoelectric effect without any established theory

Well if you shine a UV light on a metal-

>No definition of UV light or metal

If you point the mystery lamp that uses electricity but doesn't work at the shiny ball, it makes-

>All ways to detect electrons come from the mainstream science boogeyman

Ok so the lamp that doesn't do anything doesn't do anything, gotcha.

>>9740615
The space between the electrons and the nucleus is too small

>>9741910
You think every one of them is wrong until you think about it.

Let's look at mass. In a simple sense you can call it weight, or you can say its a resistance of force or whatever.
Fine, so what's its mass in free space? Maybe we should count the atoms instead? Count the molecules?

If you don't know what gravity is, you can't quantify the forces acting on it because you don't know what they're doing.

And light is never constant, it's constantly varying given the medium of propagation, which given free space should be Real C.

>>9741934
Remember, as simple as it gets, right? We'll shine that light on the conductive surface.
Now we use something to measure the current, and we see something is there. Easy.

What do you feel, in this little experiment, is the most rational explanation, the most simple explanation? And does that explanation infer a relationship between light and electricity?

>>9741959
But anon, currents are just mainstream science boogeyman propaganda. The intuitive explanation to me is electricity goblins doing a cute little dance inside the wires because they're happy.

>>9741971
It is propaganda of sorts, the current is not inside a perfect conductor. Current is on the inside of an insulator, to as far as it terminates.

Someone before mentioned electron microscopes and coating. That's exactly the reason why. It's why all conductors reflect light. It's exactly why the current exists on the skin of the conductor, it can't terminate inside the conductor.

>>9741959
Well, the most simple explanation is that you somehow jumped from a photoelectric experiment to a photovoltaic one, since we're now measuring a current, as opposed to the conductive surface gaining electric charge.

Strange, that, it's like the experiment magically changed to suit your ideas about the world, exactly like how experiments don't behave when you do them in real life.

>>9741784
>It bounces around with an amount of energy that would imply that it was just hit by a volleyball fired from a cannon. Does this imply that the cannon fires something that has at least some of the properties of a volleyball?

Sure? Don't know what you're trying to prove with this, but we'll take it a step further.

>Guy fires actual "real" volleyballs.
>volleyballs being made of leather/rubber
>leather coming from big hide of animal
>big animal was once an egg and sperm cell
>and so on

>>9741802
>point something out that proves the current assumptions wrong instead of complaining that they don't fit your idea of how the world should work.

OKAY. Explain what causes a "field" and tell me what physicality a "field" has.

>>9741839
No, it is in fact quite true. In order to see anything from an electron microscope, you must first coat it in gold or another conductive material based on the material you are looking it. You must alter the thing you're looking at before looking at it.
>Alter thing you are looking at
>in order to view it with "Special unwavering and accurate" eyes.

This is how every single particle is "discovered".

>>9740615

Of course the model is wrong. If the public had access to the genuine model, it would enable anyone to access nuclear energy since every atom's electron charge is dependent on subatomic plasma (aether), even the radioactive elements. Einstein did a great job with misleading everyone away from the truth.

>>9741997
Here's a question then: What is the charge actually doing? If we have a small metal sphere, is the charge only on the point where the light is?

It's like the question of a magnetic field. What is it actually doing? Is it moving? Is it static?

>>9742004
A field is a perturbation in the aetheric plasma. Magnetic fields for example, are structured as multiple vortices in the aether. Angular momentum of an aetheric vortex is responsible for magnetic coupling. If two vortices are spinning in the same direction you get attraction (coupling). If two vortices are spinning in the opposite direction they repel each other and don't couple.

>>9742085
>A field is a perturbation in the aetheric plasma.

>>9741907
>>9742004
That's not true at all I have used a SEM before while working with an entomologist and we had to do no gold coating

>>9742085

>>9740615
'Incorrect', you say?
OP, all of physics consists of rough models that we can use to predict reality -- physics is NOT reality. Even just considering classical physics, you could phrase and model it in a number of varied ways.

>>9742615
No thanks I'd rather just have the actual thing over a model.

>>9740615

Yes it's incorrect, but not in the way you think. All matter is a single field permeating multi-dimensional space. For some reason(s) (probabilities) concentrations of energy in this field form the matter you understand. Essentially all matter is a fluctuating field throughout space-time, and any other dimensions.

Quantum field theory.

>>9741894
How many times did you fail high school physics again?

>>9742623
Twice, but my point still stands.

>>9742621
We had just the actual thing for most of human existence, and were stuck as destitute subsidence farmers

We've had models of reality for a few hundred years, and there's been exponential growth because of them.

Deal with it you pedantic autist.

>>9742621
Is this nigga for real? Your level of ignorance and stupidity is fucking abysmal.

This is what happens when pop sci floods the general populace's attention. The layfolk think they've learned how science works but still can't fucking grasp using models to predict reality.

>pop sci was a mistake

>>9742468

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_electron_microscope

"Nonconductive specimens collect charge when scanned by the electron beam, and especially in secondary electron imaging mode, this causes scanning faults and other image artifacts. For conventional imaging in the SEM, specimens must be electrically conductive, at least at the surface, and electrically grounded to prevent the accumulation of electrostatic charge."

>>9741894
>>9741952
This man speaks the truth. Nobody considers that "mass" and "Gravity" are codependent on another "mass" and "source of gravity". What is the mass of earth when there is no "center" anchor point to hold it together? What is the gravity of Earth if the sun instantaneously disappeared? Also what is the "gravity" in the center of a mass? In the center between two masses? If it's close to "0" then how is it a "force"?

>>9741894
>>9741952
>>9743187

get some help you autists

>>9740628
I'm not normally sentimental about science but there's something absolutely beautiful to me about the simplicity and symmetry of these shapes.

>>9743226
they're not as pretty as you think
https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Table_of_spherical_harmonics.html

>>9743209
Should I just accept another half-assed definition of what causes gravity? Do magical "graviton" particles control the gravity? Or is it the quantum foam? Explain to me why the force of gravity is "0" at the center of a large mass and stop dodging questions. No one has explained how "mass" causes gravity without fallacies, particularly circular reasoning seems to be a favorite of those that actually believe that gravity is a "force". There is absolutely no force involved whatsoever, it is nothing other than the coherency of pressure mediation via rotational inertia.
Why is it autistic to question flawed theories? I thought that was called "science".

>>9743392
Science has become a cult.

>>9743187
You can measure the inertial mass of an object with a spring, a table and some lubricant, literally just lube up the table to eliminate friction, hold the object in place while compressing the spring, and see how fast the object accelerates. Repeat with several different objects and you have their masses in relation to each other.

Holy fuck how do you keep missing that mass does more than interact with gravity you dense fuck

>>9743392
The quest for the graviton is not revealing any results. Gravity however, works well as a geometry of slope created by mass in a space-time membrane. Space is constantly slipping down and out of Earth's mass affect field giving us an acceleration we call gravity. The same force is equal to acceleration. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/einsteins-genius-changed-sciences-perception-gravity

>>9743444
>Space is constantly slipping down and out of Earth's mass affect field giving us an acceleration we call gravity

>t. Schizo

>>9743427
>You can measure

You can talk in Spanish too, it doesn't explain where it came from any better.

>Holy fuck how do you keep missing that mass does more than interact with gravity you dense fuck

How do you keep missing the fact that "gravity" cannot logically exist because of the reasons you just stated. It is nothing other than the interaction of changes in the masses, there is no "force of gravity". How is an acceleration a force, it's a variable to calculate force according to F=ma.

>>9743444
>Space is constantly slipping down and out of Earth's mass affect field giving us an acceleration we call gravity.

Space has no properties. It is not a definable entity in and of itself. More accurately it is "filled space" because it is full of EM, debris, "particles". It is not an absolute pure vacuum. To say "space" does something is a fallacy because it cannot do anything. It is the pressure mediation of EM in the form of "waves" that makes the earth rotate and vibrate.

>>9743503
Acceleration is a result of force by F=ma->a = F/m you dense fuck

If the spring has constant force, that means for varying m, you get varying a

And gravity isn't the interaction between CHANGES in mass, it's interaction between constant mass.

>>9740615
Of course. Everything is fields, and fields are not particles.

>>9743503
Spacetime seems to have properties as a topology, where we get gravity waves as detected by LIGO. The topology may arise out of the "bulk" N+1 of the boundary of entangled particles and a granularity at Planck scale, 10-33 cm. https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/GrainySpace.html

>>9740820
>Mathematics is a measurement of physicality

Sez you, buddy. Why should I take as an axiom that mass or charge can exist as little balls but not as little corkscrewing mathy things?

>>9743187
>Nonconductive specimens collect charge when scanned by the electron beam, and especially in secondary electron imaging mode, this causes scanning faults and other image artifacts

When this happens most call it "whiting out" there is a valve that let's in a little "atmosphere" and it fixes it

>>9743508
>Acceleration is a result of force by F=ma->a = F/m you dense fuck
That's not the point I was making. Gravity is an ACCELERATION, not a FORCE. The fact that gravity changes with mass should fucking make this clear enough yet people still insist that there is a "force of gravity".

>If the spring has constant force
What gives a spring constant force? It is an inert object until the potential is built, for that to happen energy must enter it.

>it's interaction between constant mass
there are no constants of mass, there is no resting mass to be constant! The mass will either become

a. Incoherent(gaseous, not "conglomerated", repulsed)
b. Coherent (dense, conglomerated, attracted, "towards wholeness"

But it is always in motion. Mass is nothing other than acceleration and retardation of EM, even the harebrained theories of GR claim that mass becomes "infinite" at the "speed of light".

>>9743552

"Spacetime" is a meme term that combines two unreifiable thing into one. "Time" being a measurement conjured up by human language and "space" really being just various pressure meditations of something undefinable in motion.
.
"Gravity waves" being another meme term that means absolutely nothing since most branches of science can't explain what the cause of gravity is. Does it "wave" with it's left or right hand?