[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 293 KB, 1800x836, SS2574378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004296 No.10004296 [Reply] [Original]

Daily reminder that light is just the opposite of gravity.

>> No.10004298

>>10004296
No, it is not.

>> No.10004308

>>10004298
yuh-huh

>> No.10004315

>>10004298
It is.

Stars emit light and they are bright.
Black holes consume light and are dark.
Dark is the opposite of bright.
Black hole is the opposite of a star.

Gravity is the opposite of light.

>> No.10004322

>>10004296
>Waves (wave packets) in the electromagnetic field are the opposite of spacetime curvature

Watching Rick and Morty stoned is not a physics education, OP.

>> No.10004324

Gravity doesn't exist, it's a plot by (((them))) to get you to pay for useless physics experiments and worthless theoretical """" physics"""" research.

>> No.10004331

>>10004315
"Look at my, my dialectic is beyond your physics".

>>10004324
"I don't know anything about physics and I refuse to learn"

>> No.10004333

>>10004324
yeah lets instead finance world wars and sell arms

>> No.10004334

>>10004315
>Stars produce light
>Black holes consume all including light and are therefore dark past the event horizon
>the absence of light is the opposite of there being light
>A black hole is just another thing that isnt fully understood, the same as any star we know. To say they are direct opposites is ridiculous.

After all that I still dont get how you come to gravity being the opposite of light. If i turn my lamp on I don't suddenly start hovering.

>> No.10004336

>>10004315
You did this the other day and people told you how fucking retarded you are.
Why do you insist on continuing this claim?

Nothing in those sentences leads to gravity being the opposite of light. Gravitationally, a black hole the mass of our Sun is the same as our Sun. So where is the opposition?

>> No.10004366

>>10004331
More like: "There is literally no proof of gravity beyond theoretical poppycock". Stupid faggot should have waited a week for the apple to EVAPORATE back UP unto the goddamn atmosphere.

>>10004296
>Light is EM
>electromagnetism
>another acceleration
>an acceleration is the opposite of an acceleration

That is basically what you're saying, and that's with me assuming that gravity exists and that light travels(it doesn't).

>>10004315
>Stars emit light and they are bright.
>pebbles thrown in water "emit" water because you can see the waves of water.

Fucking stupid.

>> No.10004372

>>10004296
please stop making this thread, you're retarded

>> No.10004387

>>10004334
>If i turn my lamp on I don't suddenly start hovering.
Do you hover when you are exposed to sun light? This is how retarded you sound.

>>10004336
>Gravitationally, a black hole the mass of our Sun is the same as our Sun. So where is the opposition?
The opposite comes from the fact that black hole will consume the light while star emits it.

>>10004366
The pebbles doesn't emit water because the amount of water molecules doesn't change. It just moves them.
Stars on the other hand emit light. They produce actual photons, creating more light than there was before. This is High School level physics, m8.

>> No.10004432

>>10004315
stars are not antigravity, light is affected by gravity but gravity doesnt care about light.

>> No.10004437

>>10004387
>Stars on the other hand emit light. They produce actual photons, creating more light than there was before. This is High School level physics, m8
quantum field theory is not high school level physics
you should know this, if you know high school level physics, and aren't quoting random stuff you've heard without understanding it

>> No.10004438

>>10004432
Anything with energy affects gravity, anon...

>> No.10004440
File: 108 KB, 634x547, 026F91630000044D-3333250-image-a-2_1448452956021.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004440

>>10004438

>> No.10004453

>>10004437
QFT is not a full description of physics, it's incomplete. You need general relativity to properly describe gravity light dichotomy.

>> No.10004510
File: 8 KB, 250x202, 1517871699743.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004510

>>10004315
>Black hole is the opposite of a star.

>> No.10004513
File: 40 KB, 751x544, retarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004513

>>10004296
I am also reminded that OP is not only a fag, but a retard as well.

>> No.10004519

>>10004336
>You did this the other day and people told you how fucking retarded you are.
>Why do you insist on continuing this claim?

Because you feed him.

>> No.10004523
File: 892 KB, 400x225, prove gravity real fall.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004523

>>10004366
>There is literally no proof of gravity

Oh, wait, here's some!

>> No.10004527

>>10004523
It doesn't prove gravity. Earth is just constantly accelerating upward and causes this apparent force.

>> No.10004536
File: 628 KB, 260x240, gravity.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004536

>>10004527
No, because of pic related.

>> No.10004547
File: 3.03 MB, 340x462, no gravity no how.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004547

>> No.10004565

>>10004536
Why?
The Earth is accelerating upwards. When turtle trips over the edge, it's inertia makes it stay in place while the floor (along with the camera) accelerates towards it.

>> No.10004569

>>10004565
so there's no gravity in australia?

>> No.10004573

>>10004569
Gravity doesn't exists.

>> No.10004666

>>10004527
The earth is stationary. Extremely embarrassing I have to tell supposed adults something so fundamentally obvious about their reality.

>> No.10004673

>>10004510
dumb frogposter

>> No.10004891
File: 3.30 MB, 345x351, aGQpFgV.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10004891

>>10004387
>Stars on the other hand emit light. They produce actual photons, creating more light than there was before. This is High School level physics, m8.

Really? Because I'm gonna need proof that "stars emit light" because so far all we've gather from stars is that they act like electrical transformers. You know, transforming shit that was already there to begin with and making it coherent. That isn't "emission".
Somehow in your infected mind you believe that something is actually traveling through the vacuum of space when it is simply a difference of what is already there. Even in a vacuum sealed light-bulb, what the fuck do you think is "traveling" through solid glass?
>particuls and uh, well they turn into vibrations and excitation n' shiet... and then it turns into heat...somehow.
Cool now explain how the fuck they do it.

>>10004523

Oh much wow! Gifs prove that acceleration is a force! Let me dredge up one of my proof gifs here and just let you the talking. In the meantime I'm gonna go make an anti-gravity device with standing penguins and every one that falls over I'll club to death because they aren't producing enough "anti-gravity".

>> No.10004900

>>10004573
So the earth is flat?

>> No.10004910

>>10004333
War makes God happy.

>> No.10005200

>>10004565
Earth would pass the speed of light after a very short amount of time if that was the case

>> No.10005217

If light is the opposite of gravity, and stars are the one major source of light in the universe, how come stars have so much gravity?

Why are births of black holes the brightest things we know of?

>> No.10005230

>>10005200
Not really. It's only relative to observer on Earth. The time slows down as you approach the speed of light so you can't really pass it.

>> No.10005234

>>10004900
Yeah, it's just accelerating upwards

>> No.10005237

>>10004910
I'm actually not a big fan of war.

>> No.10005242

>>10005234
then why is the force of the gravitational field measurably weaker in e.g. ecuador than in e.g. new york?

>> No.10005250

>>10004315
I throw garbage around the house, vacuum sucks garbage in the house.

Vacuum is the opposite of my garbae.

>> No.10006323

>>10004296
your mothee is a opposite

>> No.10006334

>>10005250
Vacuum is literally a space devoid of matter.
It's the opposite of any matter.

>> No.10006335

>>10004296
wtf iys true

>> No.10006337

>>10006334
hah
heh

>> No.10006375 [DELETED] 

>>10004891
That

>> No.10006378

>>10004891
That gif actually disproves gravity.

>> No.10006386
File: 39 KB, 542x403, 1518191468744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006386

>>10004315
Masterful reasoning.

>> No.10006415

>>10004324
>>10006378

So all those David Avocado Wolfe memes were right all along.

>> No.10006441

>>10006378
thats actually an electragnetic wave, you can see the little sinuses. and light has no gravity because it is the opposite of heavy

>> No.10006531

>>10006415
Yes.

>> No.10006532

>>10006441
It's an electromagnetic universe.

>> No.10006541
File: 91 KB, 646x438, SINUS2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006541

>>10006441
>sinuses

>> No.10006544

>>10004387
>Do you hover when you are exposed to sun light?
>Stars on the other hand emit light
you also emit light you absolute fucking moron and I'm not even going to go into detail on how black holes "consume" it
they just trap it because every direction beyond event horizon points inward

>> No.10006546

>>10006544
>you also emit light you absolute fucking moron
Humans are like pebbles. They just reflect light from the sun.

>they just trap
There is no difference. As far as we are concerned, the light falls into black hole and never comes back.

>> No.10006562
File: 11 KB, 480x268, 77374810001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10006562

>>10006546
>They just reflect light from the sun.

>> No.10006566

>>10004296
>shine a flashlight at the ground
>float away

>> No.10006918

>>10006378
Darn, cause I really wanted to start clubbin' these falling penguins.

>>10006415
Kinda, but he's a still a flat-tard

>>10006544
>you also emit light you absolute fucking moron and I'm not even going to go into detail on how black holes "consume" it
they just trap it because every direction beyond event horizon points inward

>you emit water when you spash around in a pond.

So tell me what will the camera pick up when there is nothing there to reflect off of? If there were no EM then your image wouldn't even exist. Also black-holes are more theoretical gibberish so your description of them will be at the very best, completely incorrect.

>> No.10007076

>>10004296
Daily reminder that doors are just the opposite of toilets. You use your door to bring stuff into your house, and the toilet to get rid of stuff you never want to see again. The toilet is wet and the door isn't. The door has hinges and the toiled doesn't. I rest my case.

>> No.10008438

>>10007076
Based and doorpilled

>> No.10008446

>>10004315
what would happen if a black hole filled with light, collided with a star made from darkness?

>> No.10008453

Exactly.
Light is light and gravity is heavy
Like ur mum

>> No.10008854

I'm glad I saw this thread, it's confirmation that a lot of people on SCI only pretend to know anything about science. It's crazy how many people have missed the mark on understanding physics concepts so much.
It's like their P.E. teacher back in high school asked them to throw a tennis ball at a big brick wall. Then they threw it as hard as they could, somehow managing to have it miss the wall, bounce back off a tree branch and hit them in the head.

>> No.10008875

>>10004527
Lmao found the flat earther.. if the earth was constantly accelerating upwards, it would be getting faster and faster, requiring more and more energy as it approaches the speed of light.
If you've gone so far as to reject even the physics behind what I said up there, then you still can't deny that the earth would need to be ejecting something out of its rear end such that the force output would be equal to ~9.81*mass of the earth. And if you believe in meteoroids, the increasing speed of the supposed flat earth would consistently increase the likelihood (and severity) of hitting said massive meteoroid.
So if earth has been accelerating at 9.81m/s^2 for whatever length of time your belief system decided the earth is old then chances are we'd be dead right now and the world would have ended.

>>10004666
The earth isn't stationary, it's spinning and rotating around a massive sun that in itself is moving incredibly fast while rotating about the centre of our galaxy which is also moving pretty speedily.

>> No.10008877

>>10005234
Answer this flat earther: >>10008875

>> No.10008886

>>10008875
>>10008877
>requiring more and more energy as it approaches the speed of light.
it'd help to get past basic physics before discussing flat earth. energy is dependent on reference frame. who cares that the energy approaches infinity in some old reference frame... seeing as the universe was made for the earth, there's no problem with some irrelevant old reference frame having all of its energy devoted to the earth

>If you've gone so far as to reject even the physics behind what I said up there
sure you could phrase it like that

>then you still can't deny that the earth would need to be ejecting something out of its rear end such that the force output would be equal to ~9.81*mass of the earth
???
the earth is not a rocket
the universe can impose a force on the earth...like you know how earth orbits the sun without ejecting something out of its rear end...

>And if you believe in meteoroids, the increasing speed of the supposed flat earth would consistently increase the likelihood (and severity) of hitting said massive meteoroid
this is actually an interesting argument
however, if meteroids were randomly distributed across all possible directions of spacetime trajectories, then the chance of dying would always be the same, since of course you have no absolute speed in the universe...only relative to some reference frame of the asteroids (and the asteroids as a whole might be evenly distributed like i said)

>> No.10008924

>>10008886
I can see the logic in your argument and the way you've disputed my points is hard to argue with. Obviously I don't agree though, and I'm not a doctor of physics. I can't really make many points further than what I have simply because you don't believe so many things that I consider fundamental. Arguing with your logic would be the same as arguing with, for example, someone who didn't believe that the moon is made of anything other than cheese.

Someone who thinks the moon is made out of cheese would believe that cows don't produce cheese, and that it is somehow synthesised or otherwise produced by humans some other way such that it's feasible within their frame of reference, and almost logical, that the moon would be made out of cheese. There comes a point that you can't really argue with that, even if you milk cows and make cheese out of it yourself, how does the person know that what you're making isn't some faux cheese? I think you understand my point.

>> No.10008947
File: 9 KB, 568x476, hmbiG.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10008947

Black holes are just time-reversed stars.
When you play black hole in reverse it appears to emit light just like stars.

Star's gravitational collapse is just a collision of a star with black hole from the future. Just like electrons can annihilate with positron, which is simply time reversed electron.

>> No.10008956

>>10008924
>Someone who thinks the moon is made out of cheese would believe that cows don't produce cheese, and that it is somehow synthesised or otherwise produced by humans some other way such that it's feasible within their frame of reference, and almost logical, that the moon would be made out of cheese. There comes a point that you can't really argue with that, even if you milk cows and make cheese out of it yourself, how does the person know that what you're making isn't some faux cheese? I think you understand my point.
yeah, it's a valid point
i think we just have to each learn to live with knowing some things we know are wrong, and we have to question the things that we each feel are worth questioning, which will always be different for people

>> No.10009072

>>10008956
I can agree with that. Being an electrical and computer systems engineer, I'm much more inclined to accept relevant and current dominating scientific theories because it makes what I do a lot easier to work with. Problem solving gets a lot easier when you can accept that the system you're working with obeys consistent physical laws.

>> No.10009222

>>10004296
Absense of light is dark. These things are so powerful they twist SPACE. Worse still it's just a compressed core that goes nowhere and spills out the top a little.

>> No.10009518

>this thread is the state of /sci/

>> No.10012233

>>10004315
Fuck off and take your forced pasta with you.