/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9932931
Objects have a tendency to distort space-time, hence other objects are attracted to them because they are following the curvature created by the initial object. The more mass, the more gravity. It's not fucking hard, or are you trying to convey some other theory you developed

>>9933023
>distort space-time
>>>/x/

>>9933023
>Objects have a tendency to distort space-time
proof pls

>>9932931

I know right? The flat earth makes more sense that this round earth bullshit

> "I don't understand this" or "this doesn't make sense to me" are not legitimate criticisms of established scientific theories. The fact that the universe is not simple enough for you to understand is your failing, not the universe's.

>>9933053
t. Simp

elaborate

>>9933061
Can pull CO2 towards the ground but can't do shit to clouds.

>>9933062
>hurr what are particle densities

>>9933062
get familiar with elementary school concepts like buoyancy before trying to epik trole a science board you twit

>>9933064
>thinks CO2 is denser than water

Well because its a complicated idea, for many and it doesn't make sense to many, however i argue you to disprove current theory of gravity if you can sir!

>>9933067
>thinks CO2 is denser than water

>>9933071
yes, it is denser than water VAPOR you double nigger

>>9933077
>thinks water vapour can just float in the air without being blown away by wind and withstanding direct sunlight

>>9933095
epik trole xDDDD

>>9933097
Nice argument.

>>9933062
At least you are not saving that fact you can just disprove gravity

>>9933127
What?

>>9933036
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

>>9932931
Theoretically, /sci/ should be filled with smart people, not easily trolled.

Oh well...

Here's a picture of a home-made "stomp rocket," just so this thread is not a total waste.

>>9933068
>Thinks it never rains.

>>9933152
>thinks gravity waits and let's all that water build up before pulling it down

>>9932931
Gravity is routinely observed, everything follows Newtons predictions.

But action at a distance must have been weird to come up with.

>>9933188
>thinks preteding to be retarded is funny

Because gravity as defined by Einstein is only a 3-dimensional projection of the true nature of gravity.

The best conjecture we have at the moment are gravitons that move across dimensions.

>>9932931
Nothing makes fucking sense. To prove it you can just start asking "why": why the wind blows? Because there is a difference in pressure between the two spots, then the atoms go where is less pressure, why they do that? ...
I think you get the idea: things are just like that we can't understand anything 100% (It's some kind of a limitation because we have a physical brain).

>>9933195
>thinks gravity waits for ice crystals in clouds to form snowflakes before pulling them down

>>9933151
My 4 year old cousin made one of those
>Were you trying to impress people?

bump

Consider Classical Elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(classical_element)

So what causes gravity, do gravitons exist or is it the curvature of space-time acts as a sheet being warped?

>>9933095
>Without being blown away by the wind
Are you aware that clouds move? They do, you know. Because of the wind.
>Withstanding direct sunlight
Ah yes, the sunlight that I guess is going to vaporize the water vapour, the one that's already vaporized. That water vapour. Makes sense.

Do electrons, protons or neutrons have gravity on their own?
What about even smaller subatomic particles?
At what point does something not have gravity?

I'll just leave this here

https://youtu.be/oBcNj9UgeUI

>>9935256
Everything "has" gravity if it has energy, the thing is just that gravity is the weakest fundamental force by several orders of magnitude, so it doesn't do anything noticeable at the subatomic scale unless your measurements are incredibly precise

>>9933151
>Theoretically, /sci/ should be filled with smart people, not easily trolled.

/sci/ has a lot of smart people, but bait threads like this attracts the idiots of /sci/ who attempts to prove that they are smart

>>9935259
Nice complication of complete retardations

>>9935231
>Are you aware that clouds move? They do, you know. Because of the wind.
While maintaining their structure and going at the same steady speed - don't be retarded.

>Ah yes, the sunlight that I guess is going to vaporize the water vapour, the one that's already vaporized. That water vapour. Makes sense.
It's condensed water vapour you little shit. So yes, it can be vapourised further.

>>9935332
Shut up Bill Nye.

Everyone stop replying, let's pretend like this board knows bait when it sees it.

All fields.

>>9932931
Everything is just falling all the time. It makes perfect sense

>>9935400
but science told that galaxies are moving away from each other.. so ???

>>9935401
We don't know what direction they are going. They could just be following the curvature of the universe.
I mean everything big is just a big version of every thing small so maybe it's following something similar to how the continent's all drifted away from each other. A flat universe doesn't make sense considering there is NOTHING that's naturally flat in the observable universe

>>9932931
I know you..... You are the flatearther idiot again, aren't you?

>>9933036
>>Objects have a tendency to distort space-time
>proof pls
Apart form the already mentioned Gravity Probe B, you have LAGEOS

>>9935212
>So what causes gravity, do gravitons exist or is it the curvature of space-time acts as a sheet being warped?
You know that those two are not mutually exclusive.... It's like asking "what causes electromagnetism, do photons exists or it is the curvature of the U(1) principal bundle over the space-time?"
One is the classical interpretation, the other is the quantum interpretation.

>>9935256
>Do electrons, protons or neutrons have gravity on their own?
If by that you mean "they suffer gravitational interaction" the answer is yes. See, for example, the experiment by Witteborn and Fairbank in 1967. Even more, Thomson's experiment already measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron.

>>9932931
Are people still hoping for gravitons?

>>9932931
The babby's Newtonian understanding got us to the moon and probing space. Start there.

>>9933077
holy shit top jej.

anyway what factor does temperature play on gravity, given temperature plays a role in everything?

>>9935500
>Are people still hoping for gravitons?
Yes, read https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601043 and see how difficult they are to detect.

>>9935504
The computer on board the fuckin lunar lander couldn't have gotten it to the moon because it wouldn't be able to resolve the calculation accuracies required. I know shit like this is hard to believe because modern computers are so much better, but thats kinda the point. They didn't have what we have now.

>>9935511
Cozy read, for whatever reason

>>9935506
are you actually implying that CO2 isn't more dense than water vapor?
because if so then fucking kill yourself

>>9935511
Feel free to (you) me with a brainlet wojack.
But it seems that this paper says there's no real hope for detecting them short of building giganitc solar system sized experiment setup in intergalactic space.

>>9933023
But objects only follow a curvature because of gravity

>>9935332
>congruent grassroots models organically encountered throughout history = complete retardations
>one dead wizard's a priori = yassssss spin me daddyyyyyyy

>>9935609
>But it seems that this paper says there's no real hope for detecting them short of building giganitc solar system sized experiment setup in intergalactic space.
Indeed, basically if you put Jupiter around a neutron star you will detect 10^(33) neutrinos for each graviton. And now think about how difficult is to detect a neutrino.

>>9935631
>But objects only follow a curvature because of gravity
That's totally the opposite. Objects following geodesics (not "a curvature") is what can be approximated at low curvature as Newtonian gravity.

>>9935639
"Why don't you admit that my ignorance is as good as... No, even better than your knowledge?"

>>9932931
Of course it does.

Once upon a time some dumb virgin faggot sat under a tree. It was just the right time of the season for an apple to drop onto his head. Unfortunately this apple did not concuss or kill the faggot virgin, but caused him to ponder for an excessive amount of time "why did this fall on me". For some reason or another this led him down an irrational path of assuming that there is actually a "thing at rest" despite the fact that the apple came into existence by a never ending coherency of motion. Then continuing to use the apple, he further pontificated 2 more "laws" under the false premise of falling fruit.
The poor little faggot. Had he waited perhaps 1 more week after the apple fell, he would have taken note that most of the "mass" in the apple would have turned unto gaseous remnants, dissipating and rising above into the atmosphere. Maybe he would have considered then that this "gravity" were nothing other than a pressure mediation.

>>9935655

Gravity is a theory sustained only by fudge factors. Not only that, but its proponents will proudly tell you that, Empirically, it makes no sense at all, that their own measurements and implications thereof are whack, but that they PROUDLY invent reasons to think of themselves as wrong in order to maintain Newton's diary entries as dogma.

>>9935684
Things fall faster in a vaccuum :^)

>>9935684
>Then continuing to use the apple, he further pontificated 2 more "laws" under the false premise of falling fruit.
He actually believes that the Law of Gravitation is one of Newton's three laws.

>>9935800
>"falling" in a pressure mediation
>Holy shit lets take the resistance out, then be surprised that things are now unimpeded by resistance.

>>9935808
I never said it was?

>>9935834
>>"falling" in a pressure mediation
>>Holy shit lets take the resistance out, then be surprised that things are now unimpeded by resistance.
Ok, give us how the height of a free falling object depends on time depending on the density of the medium it falls.

>>9935445
>You know that those two are not mutually exclusive
Yes, but couldn't either of those exist independent of the other, or is the space-time more of an abstract way to model it?
t. never understood gravity

>>9935861
>space-time
It's a mathematical abstraction parading as a physical "thing". If something has the property of being "curved", like "space-time", that physical things follow, then space-time must be physical as well. Especially when it's also called the "fabric" of space-time.

It's horseshit.

>>9933038
Because it's not like people have been in space and taken thousands of photos and hours upon hours of video clearly showing that the earth is indeed a sphere. It's not like you can just go outside and clearly see a horizon created by the curvature of the earth. It's not like planes and ships make their way around the globe all day everyday. How can people like you manage to be so idiotic? Inb4 "hurr durr, all that evidence is doctored to keep us from knowing that the earth is just a giant disk sitting on the back of a giant cosmic turtle." Bunch of retards, the lot of you.

>>9935883
Shut up brainlet, he wants to learn physics, not flatearth bullshit.

>>9935861
>but couldn't either of those exist independent of the other
No, if you have a consistent quantum theory of gravity, you have to recover GR in the low energy limit. Although we don't have a definitive quantum theory of gravity, we can consider the effective quantum field theory emerging form GR, and there is where gravitons emerge.

>space-time more of an abstract way to model it?
No, you have space-time and it actually bends. The key point is that the metric can't be actually observed, you can only observe particles in free fall following geodesics (paths of minimal length).

>>9933095
Sunlight is why it's vapor in the first place, you colossal moron, and as for wind, have you never seen clouds moving across the sky? That's because air currents (aka wind) are moving them around. Did you not learn about clouds in elementary school like the rest of us? What the fuck?

>>9935895
>Shut up brainlet, he wants to learn physics, not flatearth bullshit.
I'm watching you, glober, playing your sick games.

>>9935899
You monumental brainlet, clouds are supposedly condensed water vapour (and ice crystals), yet can still withstand direct sunlight and don't get pulled down by "gravity".

How the fuck is it wind moving them you bizarre cretin? Wind does not act like that, particularly to very light masses where they're able to keep their structure.

>>9935851
>Ok, give us how the height of a free falling object depends on time depending on the density of the medium it falls.
First of all nothing "depends on time". .How you arrived at the conclusion is beyond me but >>9935883 this anon can clear thigns up for you. Ignoring that fact.

>depending on the density of the medium it falls.
Yes, also permeability/permittivity. So what is falling in water? How is it that one can push thousands of kilograms in weight in water as opposed to land?
>what if the object was dense like lead
What if the same amount of weight in lead (lets say 3 pounds) was stretch over a 10ftX10ft area as opposed to a 4inX4in cube?
>Well if that's all gravity is then why don't we just displace the weight of something and make it fly?
Yep, it's called a rocket. A big fucking tank that coherently displaces weight (fuel). Then it counteracts falling using nothing other than angular momentum.

>>9933038
NOTHING is naturally flat. Why would the earth be?

>>9935973
The universe is flat.

>>9935949
>clouds are supposedly condensed water vapour
yeah
>yet can still withstand direct sunlight
????
what the fuck do you want to happen to them? it's been vaporized by sunlinght already it can only condense and fall back down as snow/rain, which is what clouds do you utter nigger
>and don't get pulled down by "gravity".
why the fuck would substance with less density than mixed air be pulled down through it????
>How the fuck is it wind moving them
by pushing them around with the rest of the fucking air you neanderthal
>Wind does not act like that
yes it does, air moving around along with everything within is literally the defining attribute of the phenomenon we dubbed wind
>particularly to very light masses where they're able to keep their structure
what the fuck keeps structure? clouds change so fucking much so fast you need a supercopmuter to simulate one you insufferable imbecile

>>9935986
>what the fuck do you want to happen to them? it's been vaporized by sunlinght already it can only condense and fall back down as snow/rain, which is what clouds do you utter nigger
But they don't do that you pathetic buffoon, they float in the sky unaffected by gravity when they should be being pulled down as soon as their mass is greater than the air around them.

>why the fuck would substance with less density than mixed air be pulled down through it????
Water vapour, particularly condensed water vapour, is always going to be denser than the air, particularly air at higher altitudes which even less dense you dense swine.

>by pushing them around with the rest of the fucking air you neanderthal
>yes it does, air moving around along with everything within is literally the defining attribute of the phenomenon we dubbed wind
Wind is not smooth like that you deluded freak. "Air currents" is fucking bullshit - they're following something else.
>what the fuck keeps structure? clouds change so fucking much so fast you need a supercopmuter to simulate one you insufferable imbecile
They can keep their structure, they do change but it's very slowly and it's not due to fucking "wind".

>>9935981
That doesn't make sense though. It has to have some curvature or its shaped like a cone or something

>>9936041
It's what the data shows, the solar system functions on a plane as well. Galaxies are flat discs.

Personally I believe the earth is an infinite plane, that's what they're actually measuring.

>>9936050
Idk it just doesn't make sense to me. Nothing is flat,

>>9936012
I just realized this motherfucker thinks clouds are rigid objects with collective mass

>>9936055
The surface of water always lays flat when motionless. It's used in construction because of this.

>>9936062
That's just perspective. If you throw water into the air it immediately takes a spherical shape.

>>9936059
No bitch I don't think that. I think they're electromagnetically held together, and follow an electromagnetic path.

I'm not convinced they actually contain all the water that turns into rain, I think there's some kind of reaction between the clouds and the surrounding air.

>>9936069
Thanks brainlet.

>>9936079
I'm not the one who thinks earth is a fucking infinite plane

>>9936085
You think the universe is an infinite tunnel or some shit with aliens in it. Put yo' tinfoil hat on.

>>9936075
this is why post-natal abortion should be legal

>>9936128
Someone aborted your argument.

>>9936133
I did, because I no longer feel like trying to impart knowledge on something with IQ of a cupboard.

>>9936134
You're living in cloud faggotland if you think clouds form simply from water vapour rising and condensing into masses of denser water vapour that float and are pushed along by a constant stream of wind. Eventually pouring tons of water in a matter of minutes.

>>9932931
what goes up, must come down

>>9935259
why dont you think that people assume the world based on perception before the introduction of science because our human minds and eyes cannot fathom an object as big as the earth, so they will build their understanding on what they can see: a flat world.
And it doesnt mean a lot of people have similar ideas means the idea is correct.

>>9935970
>First of all nothing "depends on time".
That's the most stupid thing I ever heard.... Does the position of an object moving with constant speed depend on time or not, dumbass?

>.How you arrived at the conclusion is beyond me but >>9935883 this anon can clear thigns up for you
You are saying that like there are two retarded flatearthers in this thread and not only one....

>>depending on the density of the medium it falls.
>Yes, also permeability/permittivity. So what is falling in water? How is it that one can push thousands of kilograms in weight in water as opposed to land?
I'm just asking you how the acceleration of a free falling object changes with its density and the density of the medium. Is that so difficult to understand?

>What if the same amount of weight in lead (lets say 3 pounds)
Interesting.... Now it's weight, not density.....

>>9936128
>this is why post-natal abortion should be legal
Indeed.

>>9932931
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHySqQtb-rk

>>9933151
What if you attached multiple bottles and had multiple people stomp on them?

>>9932931
Motion in spacetime makes no fucking sense.
Wolfram:
>In the context of general relativity, four-vectors satisfy a more general transformation rule (Morse and Feshbach 1973). Throughout the literature, four-vectors are often expressed in the form
>x^μ = x_0 + x
>where x^0 is the time coordinate and x = (x^1 ,x^2 ,x^3) is the (Euclidean) three-vector of space coordinates.
Ergo time is a dimension in a four-coordinate system and subject to velocity:
>v = (dr) / (dt), where r is the radius vector and d / dt is the derivative with respect to time.
v for time is v = (dr) / (dt), or (dt) / (dt) = 1. Therefore there is no motion in spacetime, QED.

>>9933036
literally required for some of tech to work
unless you want to explain the discrepancies with magical disparities or inferior models

>>9937008
>Motion in spacetime makes no fucking sense.
Because you are stupid and know nothing about special relativity.

>>v = (dr) / (dt), where r is the radius vector and d / dt is the derivative with respect to time.
>v for time is v = (dr) / (dt), or (dt) / (dt) = 1. Therefore there is no motion in spacetime
That statement proves that you know nothing about special relativity or general relativity. In special relativity velocity is defined as the derivative of the trajectory with respect to PROPER TIME not COORDINATE TIME, they are different.
[eqn] d\tau =\sqrt{c^2 dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2}[/eqn]
Everyone with a slight knowledge of special relativity know that, but you don't.

>>9935579
CO2 is not more dense than H2O.

Notice I was talking about temperature.

>>9932931
Dog once lie groups are understood and applied to quantum gravity we might have a better picture. Even Einstein couldn't understand gravity.

>>9937263
>CO2 is not more dense than H2O.
H2O has more than one density state. Most people learn about them before they go to school. They are called water, ice and vapor. Ice and vapor are both less dense than liquid water and water vapor is also less dense than fucking air and almost 3 times less dense than carbon dioxide. Why do I have to type this on /sci/? What the fuck is happening to the world?

>>9937220
Ummmm.... wtf metric are you using and does it have any motivation?

>>9937220
>>9937307
>Ummmm.... wtf metric are you using and does it have any motivation?
Yes, sorry, I forgot the minus sign in the time.... You can always think about it as Euclidean time.

>>9936979
>Does the position of an object moving with constant speed depend on time or not, dumbass?
Well gee I don't know, is there a gas tank on the object that says "fill with time"? If you fill it with less time does the object go faster? I mean really it sounds stupid, "depends on time". No it fucking depends on how fast it displaces its weight by expending fuel or how much energy was initially put into it. Also depends on what resistance is in the way. If you remove resistance is that the same as "removing time"? Of course not. "Time" is not an attribute of anything, not even the mechanical workings of a fucking clock! You're removing resistance, not fucking time.
>You are saying that like there are two retarded flatearthers in this thread and not only one....
It's not flat earth you massive dipshit, it's common sense. "How does time control things" is a perfectly legitimate question to ask since there's nothing in fucking nature that "runs on time". It's not like fucking electricity or magnetism which actually has effects that are observable, it is not a goddam modality nor a thing in itself of itself by itself.
>I'm just asking you how the acceleration of a free falling object changes with its density and the density of the medium
And I gave you an example of water as a medium. Want it more simple?

>drop object
>it accelerates onto a fucking rock
>it almost instantly stops
>drop object into water
>it DOES NOT instantly stop
>it's acceleration is altered because the weight is DISPLACED

>Oh well what about in a vacuum?
pure vacuum? No such thing
>Interesting.... Now it's weight, not density.....
I assumed you would be smart enough to figure that the density of the lead atoms haven't changed in either example. It doesn't have to be a dense material like lead, it could be anything. The point is that if you take two objects of the same "weight","density" and extrapolated one of them over a large surface, it does indeed change the effect gravity has on it.

>>9932931
Your sense is based entirely on your experiences of the universe, so what do you mean it makes no sense? The mistake can only lie in you.

>>9937418
>>I'm just asking you how the acceleration of a free falling object changes with its density and the density of the medium
>And I gave you an example of water as a medium. Want it more simple?
A mathematical formula for that, dumbass. Or are you too dumb to understand numbers?

>>9937558
>A mathematical formula for that, dumbass
Idiot. There is no specific formula I can give you because it depends on the quality of the object in question. Do you understand how important a statement that is? Let me repeat that.
The falling rate of an object is purely based on it's qualitative properties, not quantitative. How do you expect me to give you a formula for quality other than "this specific quality of lead will float easier in water as opposed to this quality of lead". There is no quantitative measure for me to put in a goddamn equation!

>>9937304
What about condensed water vapour you complete moron?

>>9937669
>There is no specific formula
>it depends on the quality of the object
>The falling rate of an object is purely based on it's qualitative properties, not quantitative

>>9932931
Your confusion is what happens when /sci/ insists that space doesn't exist.

>>9937894
>insisting that it does

>>9932931
Gravity was here before you.
You make no sense if we're objective.

>>9937726
you mean rain?
it tends to fall down

>>9938014
So what's enabling dimensions, locations and distances?

>>9935500
Oh my, yes. And slo sweet, delicious graviollis! Oh my. Yes.

Also, thanks to the wonders of Science, you just read this in my voice. Yes.

>>9935524
Well, if some anonymous retard on a Pelasgian Yak-Whittling board asserts it, I guess I have no choice but to deny reality and believe it, without asking him to provide evidence.

Off to the kitchen to make a hat. Toodles!

>>9935949
Have you seriously never seen a cloud evaporate? If they get warm enough, they do. If they do not get warm enough, they do not. Sort of like water in any other situation.

Here, watch this, you can see some evaporating as they heat up, other's forming as the air cools off.

>>9938063
Forgot link -- here's the evaporating/condensing cloud vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Dg2woKWNU

>>9937879
No it's not bait. Refute what i said idiot. Liquid, ice, steam, it's all just a different quality of water. Each one has a different density, but each are still fucking water. Water vapor rises and condensation sinks because of the DENSITY of the material which the water resides in (the fucking atmosphere).

A 3 pound lead ingots acceleration WILL BE ALTERED if the QUALITATIVE aspects of said fall change or the object itself changes. For instance, lets say that instead of falling straight down at x speed with linear momentum, we express the lead over a larger surface area letting the MEDIUM BY WHICH IT TRAVELS change that linear momentum into angular momentum. Somehow our falling lead, or water, or feathers. or your dumb ass will take longer to accelerate towards the earth. There has been no quantitative change whatsoever, there is still the same amount of lead and the density has not been altered. We can even go further with this hypothetical situation and say that the same amount of lead can be formed into a balloon. What if we fill the balloon with hot air? "Hot air" or in other words another qualitative aspect of regular air (the same amount of air moving around faster and effectively taking up more magnitude). There is still no quantitative difference between the air or the lead because it is still the same amount of lead and the same amount of air, only expressed in a different form. It has used its density to displace the air around it.

Or you could do the same thing in water, or oil, or the core of the fucking earth (where there is "no gravity"). Take anything with a difference in pressure or add angular velocity and you'll have yourself "anti-gravity" or a decrease in acceleration.

>>9938034
/thread

>>9938067
You forgot ice-2, exotic ices, amorphous ice and ionic ice.

>>9938036
No, clouds. Clouds float, yet they are made of condensed water vapour.

>>9938043
Subjective consciousness.

>>9938064
That's some weird looking evaporating. How is it also able to condense at the same time?

Also, how to we not feel that jet of "wind" affect the air around us? Particularly as the earth and air around us is supposed to be rotating at a different speed to it.

>>9933038
So earth is flat and mars, the moon etc isnt? Gravity works on mars but not earth?

>>9938160
There's no proof that Mars and the moon are spheres, but even if they were you're comparing apples to oranges.

Earth isn't a planet, it is a plane. Whatever is in the sky is not the earth.

>>9938170
if earth is a plane, then how deep is the flat earth disc and what's on the underside?

>>9938192
Infinite plane, no underside.

>>9938216
why are there no continents after the ones we know then?

>>9938237
Not what Admiral Byrd said when he travelled across Antarctica. They closed Antarctica up after that.

>>9938240
Why isn't the plane flat?

>>9938240
admiral Byrd.... you mean the spyro character? the rocket penguin?

>>9938249
Nothing in nature is perfectly flat nor perfectly curved.

>>9938251
This guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mJXI0eAuwM

>>9938252
Black holes for curved, quarks for flat.

>>9938117

>>9938256
Don't know about black holes I've never measured them but I see quarks all the time and confirm they are perfectly flat.

>>9938268
GOT AN ARGUMENT!?

>>9938282
I'm honestly not well equipped for troll discussions.
In case you're just a kid who insists on repeating bullshit until someone finally changes their mind - when vapor in clouds condenses, that's when the rain starts
cheers

>>9937220
And how then is proper time a privileged version of time as opposed to coordinate time? In general relativity there is no fixed reference.

>>9938295
No sir, clouds form due to the water vapour condensing.

>>9938301
evaporating

>>9938308
Sir, if they were evaporating they'd disappear.

>>9938318
when vapor condenses it forms drops and falls back down
what the FUCK do they teach in elementary school these days?

>>9938327
Clouds are evaporating water vapour?

>>9938255
>>9938240
He was talking about Antarctica itself. But you flatards had idea that he tolked about "beyond" in your head and no matter what happen it will not be rooted out, even if you met Byrd himself.

And still you dont even try to provide actual proof for this land beyond antarctica

>>9938255
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_America_(exploration_base)

>>9938491
Does half of Antarctica look as big as America you incredulous pissant?

>>9938497
>Little America established the first successful radio broadcasting from Antarctica, making regular broadcasts that could be picked up by household radio sets in the United States, more than 11,000 miles away around the Earth's curvature.
Jej! What horseshit!

>>9939073
Somebody don't know what the ionosphere is....

>>9939092
>Ionosphere
There it is! What do we need satellites for again?

>>9939067
That would be more than half of Antarctica but I shouldnt expect flatard to be able to handle basic geometry

>>9939099
Can you fly over Antarctica to Australia, or fly from Australia to Antarctica?

>>9939106
>Can you fly over Antarctica to Australia, or fly from Australia to Antarctica?
I'm an ausfag and I know people that have done this.

>>9939168
Prove it.

>>9932931
My main gripe with gravity is that there is no counteracting force, like there is for magnets even though their respective equations are remarkably similar. Also while im typing this apparently the electric and magnetic fields don't exist and the phenomena we call the electromagnetic force is simply due to the exchange of photons...

>>>/b/
please mods, wtf is this shit

>>9939240
>Also while im typing this apparently the electric and magnetic fields don't exist and the phenomena we call the electromagnetic force is simply due to the exchange of photons...
Somebody don't like QED.....
Can you explain the photoelectric effect without photons, only with classical Maxwell EM?

>>9939720
yes

>>9939224
They're called polar routes you absolute bell end.

>>9941065
Then do it, dumbass.

>>9941752
Jej, no flight over the south pole, or just a plane trip to the south pole from Australia? Why not?

>>9932931
Tides come in tides come up
>Prooved

>>9941791
Because it is massive ice wasteland without any people. There is no point of making regular trips to middle or ever middle of that continent.

>>9932931
>Gravity makes no fucking sense.

and it never will... for you.

>>9932931
Shit drops to the floor. That's about all you need to know. Not very difficult

>>9935259
One problem here, the Egyptians figured out the earth was round about 10.000 years ago.

They looked at the distance of a shadow from a stick stuck in the ground at the two outer ends of their, idk kingdom

>>9938338
They are small drops of solid water that was condensed when the air cooled down as it reached high into the atmosphere where there is lower pressure and this lower temperatures.

But they still continue to evaporate as well.

>>9938318
That would take quite a while. And they do, just leave a camera standing around all day, aim it at some plane's trail or something.

>>9942959
So there are no Australians/New Zealanders that want to take a trip to the south pole? I mean it's not very far away is it? I'm not talking about commercial flights, just a private one will do.

>>9935973
Galaxies are naturally flat, and the physics are pretty well understood.

>>9943324
>>9943328
>They are small drops of solid water that was condensed
What's keeping them at the same altitude?

>>9938047
I did indeedily

>>9943332
How many Poles, French, German, Brithish, etc are taking flight to North Pole?

>>9943348
I don't know exactly, but I've seen the steam from boiling water rise up. Those are tiny droplets too.

Why flatearthers always consider infinite the Antartica. Why not the North Pole?

>>9943454
Because they ironically got programent by North Hemisphere goverments who prefer azimuthal map with North Pole and revelant countries in center (like UN logo).

walk into this thread and some nigga is trying to prove clouds don't exist

this is some science board huh

.

Do all things with energry and/or mass exert and are affected by gravity?

Do elementary particles have a set gravity constant?

>>9935500
If gravitons were real they wouldn't be able to escape black holes, which would then have no gravity. They don't make sense.

>>9943454
Because this shit is common only in spic countries full of illiterate niggers, like the one bordering Canada. And since both Canada and Tyrsley Gonzales' homeland are closer to the North Pole, they have a harder time excusing the infinite is there

>>9939095
only certain frequencies can be bounced off the ionosphere, and at certain times of day.

satellites fulfill the need for bouncing higher frequencies around all day

>>9943332
>I mean it's not very far away is it?
Do you want to take a trip to the north pole? Flights don't go over the south pole because it isn't the shortest route anywhere they want to go. Western Australia is a wasteland.

>>9932931
>Gravity makes no fucking sense.
A Catholic priest Georges Lemaître explained gravity long ago. The church didn't like what he had to say, and they damn near burned him at the stake for it. His theory explained the origin of the universe word for word as told to him by the angels. The problem was that his theory stated that the universe grew over billions of years. The church was already losing members as more and more old scrolls were found showing that the bible was plagiarized from much older stories. They insisted that those older stories were lies, but their story which is practically identical was true.
Being a man of the cloth, and to save his neck from the church's noose, Georges Lemaître sped up those billions of years into a blink of an eye. With the church's blessing, the big bang theory was born. Physics has long since proven that it was indeed billions of years in the making, and that Jesus is merely the name of the character in the 35th revised edition of a tale told time and time again.

The slow bang theory, says that the universe expanded from a starting point and is continually growing. No matter where you stand on the earth, it feels like you're going up on an elevator. We call that feeling "gravity" As the universe expands, and the earth expands, you are riding the elevator up. If the earth stops expanding, then there would be no gravity, and people would fall off into space. Thankfully, there is no scientific evidence to show that the earth will stop expanding any time soon, so we will have gravity for generations to come.

>>9932931
>Gravity makes no fucking sense
ikr
and it slows time
>tfw times slows down in your basement

>>9946157
>If gravitons were real they wouldn't be able to escape black holes, which would then have no gravity.
First of all, gravitons are excitations of the field, not the field itself. Now, the same question can be asked for charged black holes and their electric potential. The solution to both questions is equivalent, and can be read in https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebunn/ajpans/ajpans.html

>>9947072
>gravitons are excitations of the field, not the field itself.
wtf? If they are of the field how are they even a separate thing? Maybe I'm a brainlet, but I just don't understand the premise behind this is.

>>9947174
I'm not too knowledgeable with this, but from what it sounds like, gravitons are more of a concept rather than a physical particle? I.e. interactions between varying particle fields on the quantum level could generate "gravitons" or gravitation via energy exchange?

I dunno, just my 2 bits. Welcome to further explanation/elucidation.

>>9946380
>t. Fedora
Lemaitre wasn't criticized by the church, he was criticized by the astronomy community at large, which refused to accept his belief that the universe was expanding. Even Einstein, who agreed that his own theory was unsustainable, called his physics "atrocious." The Church had no problems with Lemaitre, who believed that his religion and his science were not connected, and did not conflict. He was even named to the Pontifical Academy of Science. Lemaitre even had to reject some of the Church's praise of him, because he maintained neutrality between his roles as clergy and scientist.

You're basically totally backward there. Although astronomers quickly warmed to his theory - the same Einstein who criticized him so heavily also later became one of his biggest supporters.

>>9947174
>wtf? If they are of the field how are they even a separate thing?
>>9947227
>gravitons are more of a concept rather than a physical particle? I.e. interactions between varying particle fields on the quantum level could generate "gravitons" or gravitation via energy exchange?
No, I say that you should consider a field theory as a classical background plus some quantum corrections on top of it. So you have a classically understandable contribution, and the contribution from the quantum particles like photons or gravitons for EM and gravity respectively, in the sense of Taylor expansion (with the expansion parameter being the number of interactions involved).
This is what is called "Background field expansion".

>>9933023
>Objects have a tendency to distort space-time
Are you some religious zealot?

>>9947227
>gravitons are more of a concept rather than a physical particle
Like most of particle physics.

>>9947468
>>gravitons are more of a concept rather than a physical particle
>Like most of particle physics.
Brainlet detected, explain then bubble chambers.

>>9933035
>What is a gravitational well

>>9947468
https://youtu.be/AMaDqaRzDm4?t=1m

>>9932931
think of it this way. gravity is directly related to mass in the same way height is directly related to how much pussy you get. the taller you are the more pussy you can get. the more mass you have the more gravity you produce.

>>9946378
Just want a private flight from Australia to the South Pole.

>>9948341
>>>/x/

>>9948341
A place you put your heavy water

>>9947227
>>9947396
>>9947468
Gotcha, so basically the answer to this
>>9947072
Is that there is no difference. It's all arbitrary bullshit, with more arbitrary bullshit stacked on top? If there is no field then I fail to see how there can be "excitation" of something that isn't there. Is what a field is doing considered a particle? Why?

>>9932931
because everything is a black hole

>>9950765
Black holes is pretty much all that there is, isn't it?

WTF!

>>9950660
No you goon. It means that if your entire scientific knowledge is based on pop sci explanations and your "common sense" of what you think specific case specific terms then you don't understand shit and aren't qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
If you want to know how this works then hit the fucking books. Otherwise you're just a brainlet asking to be spoonfed hig level concepts with no foundation for comprehension, then getting pissy over still not getting it.