/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10356202]

what is gravity?

[neuter No.10356229]

air force generated by planet beneficent dynamic. the air of the inner mechanicsm.

The core is rotating at high velocity because the planet is rotating; it creates strain in the air, just locked, not falling but stable in a system of energy.

[Anonymous No.10356242]

>>10356202
my guess is that gravity is a field generated by condensed matter

[Anonymous No.10356454]

>>10356202
Pretty cool in my imo opinion

[Anonymous No.10356516]

>>10356202
the effect of mass/energy on spacetime curvature

[Anonymous No.10356736]

>>10356516
what is space

[Anonymous No.10356739]

>>10356202
Nothing more than an illogical metaphysical concept.

[Anonymous No.10356778]

>>10356242
>>10356229
>>10356739
Magnetic attraction

>>10356516
How does a vacuum "curve"? Did you mean "filled space"?

[Anonymous No.10356816]

>>10356778
The earth is a flat torus in 3-sphere, which is compatible with the magnetic field.

[Anonymous No.10356825]

>>10356778
Space isn't a vacuum.

Also some scientific misconception...
The core of the earth is still actually a mystery.
The speed of light may not be constant, and therefore the universe may not be expanding.
There is only one infinity, and it's not a cardinality.

[Anonymous No.10356827]

>>10356229
>another schizo tripfag
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10356834]

>>10356736
Space is a 4 dimensional spheroid or toroid of some sort that 3d matter and energy is projected onto. The more mass the 3d projection has, he more of a curve it leaves on the spacial medium, a 3 dimensional depression that mass if affected by.

[Anonymous No.10356836]

>>10356202
>gravity
>something you can observe every single day
>humans are subject to gravity for 1000s of years
>still dont know how to manipulate it

lmao

[Anonymous No.10356878]

>>10356202
a social construct

[Anonymous No.10356998]

>>10356836
I mean, we have planes and shit.

[Anonymous No.10357143]

>>10356778
>The earth is a flat torus in 3-sphere
"4 corner days, Cubes 4 quad earth- no 1 day god"

>which is compatible with the magnetic field
"Compatible" implies it is not inherent to begin with. Magnetism is a conjugate of matter, meaning matter cannot even exist without it.

>>10356825
>Space isn't a vacuum.
Ah, so it is indeed "filled space" and what fills it is what's being "curved".

[Anonymous No.10357149]

>>10357143
meant to quote
>>10356816

[Anonymous No.10357167]

>>10356202
Worm like movement created by expanding and contracting space very fast. It's related to mass, because mass has field causing changes in this oscillations.

[Anonymous No.10357177]

>>10356825
>There is only one infinity
lol, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10357198]

>>10356202
Yo mama

[Anonymous No.10357232]

>>10356202
gravity is warped spacetime, mass warps spacetime inherently

[Anonymous No.10357275]

>>10357232
>t. schizo

[Anonymous No.10357304]

>>10357177
Cantors diagonalization argument breaks down qith 2 lists dealing with binary representation. Do it yourself. Just make the other list 1s for 0s.

[Anonymous No.10357311]

>>10357275
except that's literally what einstein's field equations describe, dumbass

you are irreparably a brainlet

[Anonymous No.10357324]

>>10357311
Yeah and Einstein was a schizo too.

[Anonymous No.10357331]

>>10357324

[Anonymous No.10357337]

>>10357331
>that's what the average Einstein worshipper looks like

[Anonymous No.10357349]

>>10357337
damn einstein is shaking in his boots rn

[Anonymous No.10357375]

>>10357349
>t. space-time schizo actually thinks Einstein is in his room with boots on having a seizure
Space-time, not even once.

[Anonymous No.10357391]

>>10357375

[Anonymous No.10357414]

>>10357311
I don't really disagree with you here, but if we want to take this over to philosophy; then his equations only gives us predictions for how matter moves. It doesn't follow from equations that some kind of warped space-time entity. Our intuitive understanding of it involves warped space-time, but in reality there could just as well be a fairy man in the sky that is moving everything himself, we wouldn't know this.

[Anonymous No.10357428]

let me just tally the number of retards in this thread out of 30 replies:
1. >>10356229
2. >>10356242
3. >>10356736
4. >>10356739
5. >>10356778
6. >>10356816
7. >>10356825
8. >>10356878
9. >>10357143
10. >>10357149
11. >>10357167
12. >>10357275
13. >>10357324
14. >>10357337

non-retard posts:
1. >>10356516
2. >>10357232
3. >>10357311

some other posts are either kinda weird or on a tangent. anyhow, good work sci, 14 vs. 3 retards vs non-retards. makes me really "optimistic"

[Anonymous No.10357431]

>>10357391
>thinks time physically bends

[Anonymous No.10357438]

>>10357431
>doesn't understand space-time

[Anonymous No.10357440]

>>10356202
Baby, don’t hurt me

[Anonymous No.10357442]

>>10357428
>t. salty Einstein disciple

[Anonymous No.10357446]

>>10357438
>pretends to understand space-time

[Anonymous No.10357448]

Gravity is the 4th dimensional distortion of spacetime caused by an extremely massive object like op's mom.

[Anonymous No.10357449]

>>10357442
>t. salty science denier

[Anonymous No.10357450]

>>10357446
>Thinks I don't

[Anonymous No.10357456]

>>10357448
this

Fuck op and his mom

[Anonymous No.10357463]

>>10357446
>doesn't realize that GR is a one-semester course for advanced undergrads or grad students

[Anonymous No.10357474]

>>10357449
>thinks rejecting a theory makes you a science denier
>>10357450
>believes illogical metaphysical concepts are real

[Anonymous No.10357475]

>>10357449
>Science denier
>Like it's a religion or metaphysical belief

No

>>10357428
>"Gravity is warped by spacetime"
And what causes gravity?
>"Gravity is caused by mass since mass has gravity".
But I thought mass is also attracted to gravity?
>"Well, uh, no I mean uh, mass only affects gravity not causes it"
So what is the cause of gravity?
>"Well, uh, itself, because I'm a moron who loves circular reasoning".

Count the replies folks,

[Anonymous No.10357478]

>>10357463
>doesn't realize that everyone passes the course by pretending they understand

[Anonymous No.10357480]

>>10357475
>circular reasoning
sorry you're too innumerate to understand how equations work. einstein's equations take into account the matter and energy in the universe and the solutions are a manifold along the geodesics of which matter moves. not circular.

fuck off anti-science retard. go read a fucking book for once

[Anonymous No.10357488]

>>10357474
>believes illogical metaphysical concepts are real
Relativity logically follows from our observations.

[Reddit Exterminator No.10357492]

>>10356827
Fuck off that's my thing, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.10357494]

>>10357475
What do you mean when you say gravity? If you call everything gravity then of course it would seem circular.

[Anonymous No.10357503]

>>10357480
>sorry you're too innumerate to understand how equations work.
How hard do they "work"?
>einstein's equations take into account the matter and energy in the universe and the solutions are a manifold along the geodesics of which matter moves.
K
>not circular.
Also doesn't really explain what the cause of gravity is.

>fuck off anti-science retard.
Go learn the definition of "science" please. No branch has ever explained the fucking cause of gravity so my question remains completely and scientifically valid.
"What is the cause of gravity?"
Not
"Please describe the effects of "gravity" and put it into quantified terms."
That doesn't tell me what the cause is. Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.10357518]

>>10357488
>Relativity logically follows from our observations.
Anything can be logically valid, it's whether it's both valid and sound that matters. Relativity is not sound at all, and it hides this fact by claiming what they're doing is mathematical, when it's actually metaphysical.

[Anonymous No.10357524]

>>10357503
Science has never explained causes. Science gives us models and predictions of how our universe acts. And Einsteins relativity is what best describes our world now.

[Anonymous No.10357561]

>>10356202
oh god it’s the berserk faggot semantically rambling about nothing again because he can’t understand even the most basic physics

Why does he have to shit up every thread

[Anonymous No.10357563]

>>10357524
>Science has never explained causes
You're telling me
>Science gives us models and predictions of how our universe acts
Which is like asking a potter to make to a wooden table.
>And Einsteins relativity is what best describes our world now.

Basically what you said was: "We don't know shit and cannot explain what causes gravity, but we continue to believe a blind persons observations of such."

[Anonymous No.10357570]

>>10357561
I have never made a single thread on /sci/, it'd be a waste of time. I just come in to enjoy the merry-go-round.

[Anonymous No.10357578]

>>10357518
>Relativity is not sound at all
How did you come to this conclusion?

>and it hides this fact by claiming what they're doing is mathematical, when it's actually metaphysical.
Relativity is a scientific theory, not philosophy. And Einstein was a big proponent of philosophy, and a scientific anti-realist if I'm not wrong.

[Anonymous No.10357590]

>>10357563
Are you totally retarded? You think relativity is just guesswork? It has given us tons of predictions of our wold which has been confirmed many years later. What more do you want from a scientific theory?

[Anonymous No.10357600]

>>10357590
>Are you totally retarded? You think relativity is just guesswork? It has given us tons of predictions of our wold which has been confirmed many years later. What more do you want from a scientific theory?

*AHEM*

"WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF GRAVITY?"

[Anonymous No.10357609]

>>10357600
I already said this is not how science works, I don't know why I bother, this is too dumb.

[Anonymous No.10357612]

>>10357600
i guess science doesn’t offer what you’re looking for. we have an extremely successful description of GR that stems from ideas like causality, relativity, and the equivalence principle, but what is the cause of GR? basically because it just werks. why is it that way? it just is

[Anonymous No.10357630]

>>10357600
>what’s the cause of X
this is an infinite regression

why is it that avatarfags are always the dumbest

[Anonymous No.10357633]

>>10357609
>>10357612
Round we go back to:
>>10357475

[Anonymous No.10357639]

>>10357630
this is an infinite regression

>The cause of gravity is no gravity

Now we've moved to "fallacy of reification".

[Anonymous No.10357660]

>>10357478
Pretty true desu

[Anonymous No.10358969]

>>10357478
Indoctrination

[Anonymous No.10359089]

Of the four known forces, electromagnetism, weak and strong forces, are the oppositve of gravity. Gravity force emerges when weak-strong-electro force, which is the same force really, is too small at a specific point in space-time relative to the anti-gravitational universe.
Gravity fills up when all other forces are tangled up.

[Anonymous No.10359131]

>>10357639
>asks what the cause of gravity is
>moves the flag back to MUH REIFICATION
you might be the dumbest poster on this board

[Anonymous No.10359245]

>>10357475
Nice.
Einstein jewscience (fakescience) lovers BTFO.
>oy vey follow my equations that put reality into a box that we can cherry pick out of
Everytime.

[Anonymous No.10359255]

>>10359089
please stop posting nonsense

[Anonymous No.10359266]

gravity is by far the easiest force to understand because it's all geometry, universe is a 4d spacetime manifold deformed by energy, easy
fucking brainlets everywhere

[Anonymous No.10359283]

>>10359266
So in order to levitate I need to generate more energy than the Earth does?

[Anonymous No.10359296]

>>10359283
I meant energy in the sense of mass/energy
to "levitate" you just have to go really fast and use aerodynamics

[Anonymous No.10359303]

>>10359283
to counter pull of gravity you need a chair
sit down

[Anonymous No.10359313]

>>10359296
Thats flight through aerodynamics/lift though, not anti-grav or something like that.
>>10359303
Wat?
You can still feel the gravity its just focused on your back more than through your legs.

[Anonymous No.10359385]

>>10359313
yeah, that's because "anti-grav" doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10359632]

>>10359131
>moves the flag back to MUH REIFICATION

Yeah, fallacy of reification. You desperately need to google it. You're explaining shit as if it has a basis in reality when it fucking doesn't. Gravity is not a force in and of itself nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists. It's a measurement of acceleration. You can sit here and shout "GRAVITY IS PULLING YOU DOWN" all you want, that doesn't explain anything. It's like sitting next to a tree and saying that a tree "generates" or magically conjures up "shade" under itself. No, it's a privation of light and its "existence" is resultant as the absence of it. That's not an actual "thing" it's the absence of that thing.

>"Muh infinite regression!"
TOWARDS WHAT YOU RETARD? Don't just say it and think that it qualifies as a cop out to an explanation. What CAUSES IT.

Do not reply to me again with:

1. A description of what's occurring
2. a fallacy as an explanation of what's occurring

[Anonymous No.10359658]

>>10359632
what is your agenda here man? we already explained to you, what are you on about?

how is this any different from asking “why is QFT the way quantum fields work?” basically because it just weeks as a theory. you want metaphysics? then go to >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.10359679]

>>10359658
There's no explanation for gravity. >>>/sci/ should realize it's not scientific not to know the cause of something.

[Anonymous No.10359682]

>>10357414
>t. retard
Einstein's field equations don't say anything about motion at all.

[Anonymous No.10359684]

some shit

[Anonymous No.10359701]

>>10359679
not true. science’s goal is a description of phenomena that is falsifiable and has predictive power. we make a model that aligns with the real world. done. “why did it turn out that way?” is metaphysics unless you can wrap it into a better theory that lives up to the scientific standard.

in fact String Theory exists and says gravity arises from string dynamics. it’s still just speculation though so it’s not official science, yet

[Anonymous No.10359711]

>>10359701
>not predicting gravity
>calls the attempt to understand it "meta"
>waves hands at bullshit like string theory
You're a literal in-the-box brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10359718]

>>10359711
Not that guy but you're really retarded and should kill yourself

[Anonymous No.10359722]

>>10359718
>not that guy
kys fgt

[Anonymous No.10359737]

>>10359722
>retard gets called out
>"lel samefag"

[Anonymous No.10359742]

>>10359737
>>10359718
>>10359701
neck yourself, immediately

[Anonymous No.10359776]

>>10359742
sorrry not same guy. funny how you retreat to ad-hominem after you realize you got BTFO by string theory

[Anonymous No.10359782]

Have you ever wondered, like, why the universe is the way it is, man?

[Anonymous No.10359787]

>>10359776
String Theory is such retarded trash, it immediately outs brainlets who defend it.

[Anonymous No.10359793]

>>10359787
not nearly as retarded as you in this post. learn some science then get back to us ok?

[Anonymous No.10359811]

>>10359793
>calling String Theory "science"
sure thing brainletard

[Anonymous No.10359823]

>>10356202
Some of these brainlet overanalytic posts are so fucking cringe. Gravity is basic fucking physics. Fucking retards cant comprehend that I c.

[Anonymous No.10359825]

>>10359811
no argument, kek. explain why many of the most prominent physicists in the field today (including the one laughing at you in the post you replied to) still feel that ST is the most promising candidate for a quantum theory of gravity then? they're retarded too? you're smarter than them?

[Anonymous No.10359835]

>>10359632
>What CAUSES IT.
curvature of the underlying spacetime manifold
maybe some visual aid would help since you seem retarded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfThVvBWZxM

[Anonymous No.10359852]

>>10359825
>most promising
>many feel
That's three fallacies (there are more but I'll just count these):
Petitio Principii
Argumentum ad Populum
Argumentum ad Passiones
Sorry, but those aren't scientific justifications.

[Anonymous No.10359858]

>>10359835
>gravity is a caused by curvature of the spacetime manifold
>doesn't realize he's using a synonym and hasn't answer the question
Restating the problem doesn't make it go away.

[Anonymous No.10359861]

>>10359852
well how about you argue against string theory instead of your super intelligent argument which consists entirely in "string theory is retarded". be happy to school you, even though i am no big fan of string theory.

if we take a step back, i mentioned it in this post >>10359701
just as an example of how one might satisfy your metaphysical desires. in any case you could just as well continue your stupid insistence of waxing metaphysical by saying "well then WHY is string theory the way it is?" and again, there is no scientific answer. your whole premise is a logical fallacy since you don't understand the logic of science.

[Anonymous No.10359864]

>>10359861
>moving the goal posts
>reversing the burden of proof
Your crusade to push non-science as science isn't going to work.

[Anonymous No.10359865]

>>10359858
how is it restating the problem? mass/energy curves spacetime which in turn tells mass/energy how to move, all encoded in the field equations
what exactly are you missing, except a brain?

[Anonymous No.10359874]

>>10359682
Yes they do. What do you think we use them for?

[Anonymous No.10359877]

>>10359865
>being this retarded
Whew lads, >>>/sci/ is full of such retards.

[Anonymous No.10359879]

>>10359877
i'll repeat myself for the down syndrome kid here, "what exactly are you missing, except a brain?"

[Anonymous No.10359880]

>>10359864
you consistently have no arguments. you're just a shill. i explained to you
1) asking "why? why? why?" is an infinite regress that science cannot end
2) string theory answers your question in the most scientific way possible, or an alternative like loop quantum gravity or emergent gravity. i gave you this as an example, and you say "noooo string theory is retarded! i rest my case."

total brainlet tier. you're the one pushing anti-science retardation, AND you have no arguments.

probably a shill, right? jesus shill?

[Anonymous No.10359896]

>>10359880
There was no "why? why?", you fucking retard.
You're deliberately misrepresenting the problem and restating the issue to suit your false "solution" thereto, and threw in fake non-science in the mix.
And now you're alleging shilling.
You're a schizo desperately hoping your worldview isn't destroyed at any moment.

[Anonymous No.10359909]

>>10359896
still no argument. want to explain why string theory is a wrong theory?

there is a "why, why?" as explained here. >>10357612
and here
>>10359701
we explained what gravity is and you say "no, but WHY is it like that???" that's the only foot you have to stand on, and string theory, loop quantum gravity, and emergent gravity are active fields of research for constructing a theory that wraps gravity in and gives an answer to your first why question, but still, you could ask why again. this is why your question is logically fallacious, because it results in a "why why why" infinite regress. you're looking for metaphysics, and THAT is nonscientific.

[Anonymous No.10359918]

>>10359909
>puts forward an unproven pet "theory" that has no proof going forward for it and says "DISPWOOV DIS!"
Desperation drives people off the cliff. So far, he's already fallen into the abyss of circular justifications.
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10359923]

>>10359918
again, zero argument. see how you've made no arguments in your last 10 posts in this thread? you see how you are losing really badly?

[Anonymous No.10359932]

>>10359923
>puts forward no rational justifications for any statements
>gets beat the fuck down each time
>resorts to Alinksy tactic of saying this is what everyone else is doing
>so delusional in baseless beliefs thinks no one can see obvious crusade is obvious
Ahem. You were saying?

[Anonymous No.10359933]

>>10356229

[Anonymous No.10359940]

>>10359932
no argument still. let me phrase it this way, which would you prefer
1) the theory is that way because it just werks empirically
>that doesn’t answer why though!!! reeee
2) here is a bigger theory that encapsulates GR
> why is the bigger theory the way it is??? reee (back to step 1)

is there any other option?

[Anonymous No.10359951]

>>10359940
>dodging the question
>asserts it "just werks" when it clearly doesn't
>forgets Quantum Theory and GR do not combine
>still says it's explained because he says so
Man, you're just too fucking retarded. Leaving this thread now.

[Anonymous No.10359954]

>>10359951
many theories of quantum gravity exist, i listed three earlier

[Anonymous No.10359965]

Why is it so hard for some people to get that spacetime, the 4D manifold we live in, has this property to curve in the presence of mass/energy and that curvature is gravity and exactly how it does that is shown by the field equations.
What more of an explanation do they expect? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.10360307]

>>10359658
I want an explanation to the cause of gravity, and I'm curious as to how many people are pretending they know something.

>how is this any different from asking “why is QFT the way quantum fields work?
Oh hey, that's another good question. What is the cause of a "field"? Bet no one here can explain the cause or even if there isn't, why there isn't.

>>10359835
>curvature of the underlying spacetime manifold

Round we go back to:
>>10357475

>>10359965
>spacetime, the 4D manifold we live in, has this property to curve in the presence of mass/energy

Name me one property of "space"
Name me one property of "time"
How do you live in what has no properties?
How is something that has no properties a "manifold"
How does combining these two terms make either of them have any more basis in reality?

>exactly how it does that is shown by the field equations.
>what it does/is doing but no explanation to the cause...again.
>What more of an explanation do they expect?

A proper fucking explanation would be a great start.

[Anonymous No.10360353]

>>10360307
>Name me one property of "space"
coordinates, distance
>Name me one property of "time"
coordinates, distance
>How do you live in what has no properties?
what kind of properties are you envisioning? what are you talking about
>How is something that has no properties a "manifold"
but it does have properties, like it being curved by mass/energy, spacetime being hyperbolic, and there are others, maybe you should go to school and actually study this stuff sometime?

[Anonymous No.10360384]

It’s just the movement of objects in their worldline relating to a combined picture of space and time.

[Anonymous No.10360395]

>>10360353
>coordinates, distance
A measurement has no properties, try again.

>coordinates, distance
A measurement has no properties, try again.

>what kind of properties are you envisioning? what are you talking about
ANY PROPERTY. IF IT IS DEVOID OF PROPERTIES THEN HOW CAN IT EXIST? HOW DO YOU REIFY WHAT HAS NO PROPERTIES? "Spacetime" has no properties. We can go to round two of "name a property of space and time" again if you'd like.

>but it does have properties, like it being curved by mass/energy,
What is the property it has that allows it to be "curved"? Is it like play-doh? Is it like a

>spacetime being hyperbolic
How can something that has no properties have a shape?

>maybe you should go to school and actually study this stuff sometime?
Maybe you should go figure out what a "property" is and also when it's appropriate to use a question mark.

[Anonymous No.10360401]

>>10360395
*is it like a piece of spring steel.

[Anonymous No.10360414]

>>10360395
this image is all I have for you, I'm out

[Anonymous No.10360430]

>>10360414
Good one knuckle head. Come back when you pass 3rd grade and finally figure out what a "property" is. I'll be here waiting.

[Anonymous No.10360437]

>>10360395
>berserk avatarfag is a massive dumb faggot
every board, every time

[Anonymous No.10360448]

>space-time schizo has no argument
Every time.

[Anonymous No.10360451]

>>10360437
He ruined the manga for me tbqh

[Anonymous No.10360527]

>>10356202
Is the manifestation of a bended/bending space.

[Anonymous No.10360529]

>>10360395
Imagine saying that Lorentzian manifolds have no properties and actually believing it.

[Anonymous No.10360537]

>>10360307
which would you prefer
1) the theory is that way because it just werks empirically
>that doesn’t answer why though!!! reeee
2) here is a bigger theory that encapsulates GR
> why is the bigger theory the way it is??? reee (back to step 1)

[Anonymous No.10360576]

>>10360529
Measurements and models have no properties. That's like saying "an inch has a property". No it's the thing you're measuring that has the fucking property you stupid shit. Is it wet? Measurements QUANTIFY things that have the actual properties, the measurement itself possess no properties. How dense is it? What color is it? What it its volume? These are examples of PROPERTIES.

What property does space have?
What property does time have?

Really fucking simple questions to answer when you think about it.

Do not put down a fucking equation, measurement or model you glue vaping idiot. Those don't have properties.

>>10360437
And yet no one can answer my questions properly.

>>10360451
I'm not 2016 Berserk.

[Anonymous No.10360582]

>>10360576
Okay, I guess you're the authority on properties.

[Anonymous No.10360602]

>>10360576
Is curvature not a property?

[Anonymous No.10360654]

>>10360602
Yes, curvature is a property, now what is being curved?
>space
Which is made of what to be "curved"?
>...?

See you can't just claim something has a property when it in fact doesn't. Saying "Space is curved" implies that it is made of something being curved. If it was made of something then how does that classify as "space". It's "filled space".

[Anonymous No.10360664]

>>10360654
>now what is being curved
Moving the goalposts I see.

Nice mental gymnastics.
But thanks for admitting that spacetime has properties. We're done here.

[Anonymous No.10360667]

>>10360654
space can curve though (technically space time really). a line through a space (or an abstract line in the x-y plane if you like) can curve too. do you think a line needs to be made of something else?

[Anonymous No.10360679]

>>10360654
>If it was made of something then how does that classify as "space". It's "filled space".
You might wanna update your middle school definition of space

[Anonymous No.10360734]

>>10360664
Your argument is no different to saying that one of Zeus' physical properties was that of lightning, therefore Zeus is real.

Space-time has as much backing behind it to explain the source of physical behaviour as Zeus does to explain what the source of lightning is.

[Anonymous No.10360749]

>>10360734
The source is mass you tard.

[Anonymous No.10360772]

>>10360749
Mass is space-time?

[Anonymous No.10360793]

>>10360734
You forgot to avatarfag. How embarrassing

[Anonymous No.10360796]

>>10360654
>Saying "Space is curved" implies that it is made of something being curved

No, it really doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10360812]

>>10360664
>Moving the goalposts I see.
No, there are none. A property of space that isn't a fallacious one still has not been listed. See to list a "property" you also have to list what "thing" has the properties. It's a trick question because "space" doesn't really exist as something separate, as it's own thing that "does something". It's "filled space".

>But thanks for admitting that spacetime has properties.
I never admitted anything. Some moron(s) tried to claim space was "curved" yet never defined fucking space to begin with. You can't claim something has a property when it is not even a real thing. Like a measurement, which has no properties.

>>10360667
>space can curve though (technically space time really). a line through a space (or an abstract line in the x-y plane if you like) can curve too. do you think a line needs to be made of something else?
>>10360576
"Do not put down a fucking equation, measurement or model you glue vaping idiot. Those don't have properties."

>line through space

Line of what?
>do you think a line needs to be made of something else?
It needs to be made of something to have a property, yes. Just saying "lines" doesn't fucking mean anything. That's a description not an explanation.

>>10360679
Define space for me then you moron. If it has no properties I fail to see how "space" is even a thing. "Defining" what you don't know is a fools game. I can go to any bum on the street and have him parrot the same shit I've heard here so far, doesn't mean that what he's describing is what's actually occurring.

So all of you can sit back and keep shouting "space is curved!", "space-time is a manifold!" or any other nonsensical bullshit you'd like, that doesn't have any meaning nor does it pertain to what actually happens in reality. I put gas in the car not "time" and space is really "filled space", a difference in pressure.

[Anonymous No.10360823]

>>10360793
Not the same person.

[Anonymous No.10360834]

>>10360812
Space is the reals
The Continuum and space are literally the same thing, existing both in an idealized and material form.
The reals contain themselves, as all open intervals are homeomorphic to the whole line, and it self-generates, as all open subsets of the Continuum share it's cardinality. Thus, any stupid notion of "but what are the reals/where do they come from" is illogical and irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10360840]

>>10360834
>existing both in an idealized and material form
>material form
Show.

[Anonymous No.10360861]

>>10360834
>Space is the reals
As in "real numbers"? Space is not a number, sorry. Measurements have no properties

>The Continuum and space are literally the same thing, existing both in an idealized and material form.
In that they have no properties and therefore don't exist, then yes.

>Thus, any stupid notion of "but what are the reals/where do they come from" is illogical and irrelevant.
Because the universe doesn't plug shit into a calculator.

[Anonymous No.10360864]

>>10360812
>a difference in pressure
A pressure of what? Also, using this pressure theory, explain all observed graviational phenomena.
I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.10360872]

>>10360864
>>10360812
Start with the perihelion shift of mercury. That should be easy enough

[Anonymous No.10360875]

>>10360812
Geometrically speaking a line doesn't need to be made of anything to know that it's contained within a an equation in any dimension if you define an origin point.

Space is something that can be occupied by anything with volume=/=0 and traveled by anything with speed relative to a fixed point =/=0.

Our observable universe is flat geometrically speaking, because we can't see the back of our heads when we see into the distance, that makes space naturally flat in 3d. The thing is that any object with mass causes a curvature in this space-time, this curvature shows us effects such as Einstein's lenses. This effect caused by mass is what we call gravity.

[Anonymous No.10360948]

>>10360864
>A pressure of what?
Mass, EM.

>Also, using this pressure theory, explain all observed graviational phenomena.
>condense mass
>it condensates into a planet/sun
>evaporate mass
>you get "space" which is full of the building blocks for mass once again.
Unless you don't believe that boatloads of hydrogen are being ejected from the centers of galaxies, such as quasars.

>>10360872
>get closer to this thing that attracts exponentially as you get closer to it.

Literally magnetic attraction, here's a magnet under a ferrocell.
>That looks like the orbit of mercury.

>>10360875
>Geometrically speaking a line doesn't need to be made of anything to know that it's contained within a an equation in any dimension if you define an origin point.
What is the "origin" of gravity? What is the "origin" or a field? You can define with math, that doesn't make it magically appear there.

>Space is something that can be occupied by anything with volume=/=0 and traveled by anything with speed relative to a fixed point =/=0.

That doesn't make it real. That makes it the privation of something with an actual quality. An absence of properties. You're basically saying the absence of properties is a property which is a fallacy.

What does space turn into when it's not occupied? If it can't be empty then how can it be "space" to begin with?

[Anonymous No.10360988]

>>10360948
>What is the origin of gravity?
You clearly don't understand what I mean by origin, it cabe wherever the fuck you want, as long as you don't change it's location once you define it. For example I put my (0,0,0) in the tip of my dong, I don't accelerate, then it's a viable origin.

>That doesn't magically make it appear.
Math is completely abstract in nature, every mathematical object has properties that you can define by starting parameters. That's not the point.

>If it can be empty, how can it be space to begin with?
The fact that it can be empty, makes it space in the first place so that shit can travel it and occupy it. Of course this "emptyness" is relative, because if we go in other fields, space is actually never empty.

[Anonymous No.10360998]

>>10360948
>Magnetic attraction
>Not knowing the fundamental forces
>Giving a stupid and baseless pressure theory, when pressure needs space and force that needs space also to be fucking defined.

[Anonymous No.10361036]

>>10356202
A harsh mistress

[Anonymous No.10361052]

>>10357600
I'm conflicted because you're so fucking dumb but berserk is great.

[Anonymous No.10361080]

>>10361052
I agree, wtf is wrong with op ffs.

[Anonymous No.10361128]

>>10360988
You clearly don't understand what I mean by origin, it cabe wherever the fuck you want, as long as you don't change it's location once you define it.
Well I'm talking about reality, not math.

>The fact that it can be empty
It's full though

>makes it space in the first place
It's not empty, it's a pressure mediation. Its like differentiating whether steam is different than ice, both are the same thing in a different form. Space is just matter in a different form.
>so that shit can travel it and occupy it.
"it", so you're once again reifying an absence of something

>Of course this "emptyness" is relative, because if we go in other fields, space is actually never empty.

An interesting way to hide a contradiction.

>>10360998
>Not knowing the fundamental forces

Gravity is not a force. Neither is magnetic attraction. It's an acceleration. *Towards what* and *by what* has yet to be explained, so the question is "what causes the force"...basically another repeat of the question I've asked over and over.

>when pressure needs space
Pressurizing something changes the quality of it you moron. Water, steam and ice are all different qualities and pressures of "water". The amount, "quantity" or "mass" of the fucking water doesn't change whatsoever dipshit. If you have a full tank of fucking air and you pressurize it (with more air itself as against itself) and then release that pressure, all that occurred is a pressure mediation. No "gravity" or "force" ever occurred. You simply returned the fucking air to the pressure mediation of "less compressed air", using ITSELF.
Saying that it "needs space" implies that at some point it can actually be "full" which if that were the case then everything would be inert and full. Well that's why "water flows downhill" just as energy and heat is moved from where it is to where it isn't. Why would a full tank of water

[Anonymous No.10361172]

What OP seems to be asking, aside from all the crazy shit, is what gravity is. And people have replied to him that it is how we perceive the curvature of space-time.
Now, as he has also asked, is space-time like an actual sheet that curves because of mass and energy or is it just the coordinate system we use and GR describes how the axes bend due to mass? If it is the former, is the 'sheet' made of something or does it not have to be? If it is the latter, gravity still has to physically act and if it isn't a literal bending of space-time, what is it?

[Anonymous No.10361181]

>>10361128
>meanwhile, while waiting for berserkposter to finish reading a universetoday.com article so he can miscontrue it because he's fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.10361188]

>>10356202
the tendency of matter to resist entropy. Think about it.

[Anonymous No.10361219]

>>10361128
>An interesting way to hide a contradiction.
You need to define how are you studying space, what you consider an emptyness.

>Is not a force is an acceleration.
According to classical mechanics it is you fucking moron, read your own sentences ffs
F= m.a

>About your stupidity regarding pressure.

Space can be measured in two or three dimensions, the definition of fucking pressure I'm order for it to be quantifiable is F/area and wtf do you think area is you stupid Mongoloid.
>>10361188
Listen to this nigga, he is onto something.

Also, watch this:
https://youtu.be/Xc4xYacTu-E

[Anonymous No.10361227]

>>10361128
>Well I'm taking about reality not math.
You need math to analyze reality you fucking dipshit. Your precious "pressure" can not be defined without math.

[Anonymous No.10361240]

>>10359874
Nooo. It's literally in the name: FIELD equations - it describes how mass and energy changes the gravity FIELD.

[Anonymous No.10361292]

>>10361219
>You need to define how are you studying space, what you consider an emptyness.
>reifying an absence

Don't do this. This is not science.

>F= m.a
Doesn't explain what the cause of the force is.

>Space can be measured
No, but the stuff "in space" we measure all the time. Again you reify an absence.

>Space can be measured in two or three dimensions, the definition of fucking pressure I'm order for it to be quantifiable is F/area and wtf do you think area is you stupid Mongoloid.

I am not talking about math you retard. Stop assuming I am.

>>10361188
>this numale video

>puts "force" in quotes when talking about gravity
nice
>talks about resistance and acceleration, which are not forces
>then talks about attraction to earth
>"until something
>Basically never explains how it's an autonomous force.
Wonderful

>>10361227
>Your precious "pressure" can not be defined without math.

Last time I checked I didn't use math to drink through a straw, but maybe you do if the straw you feed from is hooked up to a computerized machine.

[Anonymous No.10361303]

>>10356202
I think of it like 3d surface tension.

[Anonymous No.10361312]

>>10359933
I still remember that retarded "Time Cube Is My Belief" namefag that used to shit up /x/ every single day with "time cube" threads.

[Anonymous No.10361315]

>>10356202
Gravity is negatively charged energy

[Anonymous No.10361322]

>>10361292
Ok, now you are fucking trolling, you can't literally be this stupid.
>Don't do this, this is not science.
You wouldn't know what science is even if fucking Feynman explained it to you.
>Doesn't explain what the cause of the force is
It doesn't need to in order to disprove your need to dissociation between force and acceleration.

>Space can not be measured.
It can not not be measured.

>I am not talking about math you retard, stop assuming I am.
You need math to study reality, you don't want math? Then fuck off and stop talking about stuff that needs math to be defined, these concepts such as pressure, mass, gravity, space, need math in order for us to study them, otherwise we are just guessing like dipshits.

>Comments about video.
Watch it full you stupid piece of shit, he clearly defined gravity at the end without it being a force, because he went to the process of explaining the classical mechanics view and all that shit.

>Not using math to drink from a straw.
Of course you don't use it you walking troglodyte, you don't need to to do it, but if you want to study what Happened and all the details you need science, specifically physics, so in the end FUCKING MATH.

[Anonymous No.10361346]

>>10360948
>here's a magnet under a ferrocell.
do you mind explaining what the fuck I'm looking at? Could you explain how this image was taken? So that I could reproduce it?
>>>That looks like the orbit of mercury.
not really. Whatever those things are don't appear ellipsoidal.

[Anonymous No.10361357]

>>10361322
You wouldn't know what science is even if fucking Feynman explained it to you.
I especially wouldn't know what science is if Feynman "explained" it to me. (rambled about quantum nonsense ending at "lol we dunno")

>It doesn't need to in order to disprove your need to dissociation between force and acceleration.

If it has no cause then how can it *cause* a "force" you dunderhead?

>It can not not be measured.

Bye bye math! Bye bye measurements! Nature doesn't need you, only stupid humans do.

>You need math to study reality,
No, you need it to put your observations into quantified terms.

>he clearly defined gravity at the end without it being a force, because he went to the process of explaining the classical mechanics view and all that shit.

yeah he reified "time" as a "dimension". Time has no properties. This is the last t

>Of course you don't use it you walking troglodyte, you don't need to to do it, but if you want to study what Happened and all the details you need science, specifically physics, so in the end FUCKING MATH.

Math is neither science nor nature. Relying on empirical evidence will lead you to chasing illusions.

[Anonymous No.10361371]

Whay are people still replying to the retarded berserk poster? Just ignore it.

[Anonymous No.10361373]

>>10361346
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zFJS-h0GQU

[Anonymous No.10361389]

>>10361357
>Feynman comments
It was a non-literal exaggeration.

>About force
I'm not talking about cause, I'm talking ab DCout the fact that when there's force, there's acceleration, and vise versa.

>Only humans need math.
Exactly, we are human, we need math ffs, what terms are we going to talk into then in order to discuss stuff that was defined by physics and Ultimately math?

>No need of math to study reality.
Then how the fuck are you going to define all the terms such as pressure, gravity, space and fucking time.

>Time has no properties.
It's the same dilema as with space, you are repeating yourself and I'm not agreeing because you can't compute simple data.


>Math is not a science.
Fuck, are you Katy Perry or something?

>Math is not nature.
True, but math has helped us predict events and patterns in nature, the Fibonacci sequence and the laws of physics are a proof of that.

[Anonymous No.10361393]

>>10361371
Because I'm biting the annoying b8, I can't help it.

[Anonymous No.10361397]

>>10360861
>As in "real numbers"? Space is not a number, sorry. Measurements have no properties
Both your statements are false.

[Anonymous No.10361399]

>>10361128
>Well I'm talking about reality, not math.
There is no difference there

[Anonymous No.10361400]

>>10356202
don't worry about it, goy

[Anonymous No.10361542]

>>10361373
oh so all those circles from the ring of LED lights... It's just fancy magnetic viewing film. I almost thought that would be somewhat useful for a controllable bidirectional reflectance distribution function, but it seems that's already been done. Probably wouldn't be too hard to write some code to calculate the BRDF as a function of magnetic field and plug that into a raytracer to reproduce that ferrocell.

[Anonymous No.10361734]

Gravity is just us being sunk down to objects of mass that are sitting and moving in the 4th dementional fabric of space.

[Anonymous No.10361743]

[Meme answer]

Read a book on the subject.

[Anonymous No.10361953]

>>10360948
>Mass, EM.
Prove it.
>evaporate mass
Prove it.
>Unless you don't believe that boatloads of hydrogen are being ejected from the centers of galaxies
How much? Is it enough to explain everything? Show me some observations.
Also you didn't tell explain a single gravitational phenomenon or how to quantify it. Just a bunch of pseudoscience.
>Literally magnetic attraction, here's a magnet under a ferrocell.
Show me some calculations and measurements. But you probably don't even know what a perihelion is you retard.

If you can't do this, you're just blowing hot air. But I already knew that you troll schizo

[Anonymous No.10362189]

>>10359632
Not that anon, and I didn't know what the fallacy of reification was. Google says you don't know what it means either.

[Anonymous No.10362429]

>>10357232
if spacetime can be warped, can it be ripped? if yes, what's inside the rip?

[Anonymous No.10362838]

>>10361389
>I'm not talking about cause, I'm talking ab DCout the fact that when there's force, there's acceleration, and vise versa.

Well I don't give a shit about that. I want a cause explained before a description of how much force and acceleration said causes causes.

>Exactly, we are human, we need math ffs, what terms are we going to talk into then in order to discuss stuff that was defined by physics and Ultimately math?

What happens when the universe turns out to be not "physical"?

>Then how the fuck are you going to define all the terms such as pressure, gravity, space and fucking time.

You can "define" anything that has no basis in reality, such as fairies and unicorns. Lets first figure out whether what we're defining has a basis in reality first before turning into the foundation of hair-brained ideas and theories.

>It's the same dilema as with space
No fucking shit.

>I'm not agreeing because you can't compute simple data.

COMPUTE DATA ON WHAT YOU MORON? IF IT HAS NO PROPERTIES THEN WHATEVER "DATA" YOU MAKE UP ABOUT IT IS USELESS. You're inventing placeholder numbers for that which does not even exist.

>Fuck, are you Katy Perry or something?
Don't know who that is but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Math is nor science. It is a language of quantification.

>but math has helped us predict events and patterns in nature, the Fibonacci sequence and the laws of physics are a proof of that.
>Math predicts that which is incommensurable.
Ugh

[Anonymous No.10362855]

>>10361953
>>10361953
>Prove it.
What else would it be full of idiot? Nothing? From nothing comes nothing.

>prove it
>suns don't form using tons of inert gasses being compresses
>neither do planets

So like either masses were formed and will degenerate as the generation process of this condensation slows down or they always existed with no rhyme or reason, you're choice and neither is not a choice.
>How much? Is it enough to explain everything? Show me some observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Where does all that energy go? Does it just disappear into nothing?

>Show me some calculations and measurements.
I don't give a shit about descriptions.

>But you probably don't even know what a perihelion is you retard.
I don't give a shit about descriptions.

>If you can't do this, you're just blowing hot air.

>>10362189
"You're explaining shit as if it has a basis in reality when it fucking doesn't." Is not improper. Treating something abstract (like space,math and shadows) like it were concrete and real (like a piece of glass or something tangible).
Like these retards
>>10361399
>>10361397

[Anonymous No.10362873]

>>10362429
no it just warps infinitely presumably, namely a blackhole

[Anonymous No.10362892]

>>10359632
>WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY
since you were too retarded to understand what i meant by infinite regression, you can always ask what the cause of something is. it's a retarded question. also since we're talking about fallacies,
>things need a cause
lmao retard nope, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

>Gravity is not a force in and of itself nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists
prove it

>You can sit here and shout "GRAVITY IS PULLING YOU DOWN" all you want, that doesn't explain anything.
never said that

> No, it's a privation of light and its "existence" is resultant as the absence of it.
prove it

>TOWARDS WHAT YOU RETARD
What are you talking about? It's an infinite regression. Why are you so retarded that it needs to be towards something? It's like a child asking "why" after every question. Things don't need causes, this is the fallacy of composition

[Anonymous No.10362921]

>>10362892
warning: this guy just does NOT give up. everything you said has been explained to him before but clearly he's invested in some retarded belief system he can't give up. he denies being a jesus shill so i think he's one of the retarded "electric universe" people who managed to survive in a cave on mars since rutherford discovered the nucleus. or something equally retarded.

arguing with him is just tedium since he obviously has a cognitive dissonance

[Anonymous No.10362941]

>>10362921
obliged, it's cool though i'm familiar with this idiot but as long as he's wasting his time reading my messages getting BTFO'd i'm happy

[Anonymous No.10363128]

>>10362855
So it's just hot air. I thought so. You can't explain anything with your pseudoscience after all and you don't care about the truth and just make shit up.
Thanks for the laugh buddy

[Anonymous No.10363132]

>>10362855
>"You're explaining shit as if it has a basis in reality when it fucking doesn't." Is not improper. Treating something abstract (like space,math and shadows) like it were concrete and real (like a piece of glass or something tangible).
You are a fucking moron lmao
Mathematics is more real than the physical universe, because physics is a proper subclass of mathematics.
You can't understand this because you're stupid, but this is the answer to your question. Your terms "real" "tangible" "concrete" aren't meaningful whatsoever

[Anonymous No.10363142]

>>10356202
>Not a single post that mentions higgs field

[Anonymous No.10363346]

>>10363128
>angry typing noises

>>10363132
>Mathematics is more real than the physical universe, because physics is a proper subclass of mathematics.
Oh my fucking lord you are deluded. Numbers aren't entities, please have your psychopathy checked out.

>studying the universe makes it real
Lol

>Your terms "real" "tangible" "concrete" aren't meaningful whatsoever
Very deluded. Please come back to reality, the universe doesn't plug shit into a calculator you stupid fuck.

>>10362892
>since you were too retarded to understand what i meant by infinite regression, you can always ask what the cause of something is. it's a retarded question. also since we're talking about fallacies,
So Gravity has no cause and therefore doesn't exist as a separate field modality. K

>lmao retard nope
You cannot graph or calculate infinity by definition. It is incommensurable. I fail to see what fallacy of composition has to do with it. You can divide something an infinite amount of times, it's still ONE thing that is being divided. ONE is not infinity nor is it math, it's necessity. The principle. No cause? You still have to explain the order of it. Infinite regression "of what", by what? A pie? A knife? A slice is still "pie" no?

>prove it
No, you need to "prove" it. There's nothing to "prove" about something that doesn't exist. Burden of proof is on you.

>never said that
And you didn't explain the cause of this "force" called gravity either.

>prove it
Lol! I just did! It's a privation of light. It has no properties, it's an absence of something that has the actual properties! Would you care to tell me what an "absence" is? You can't! It's ABSENT. Hence a fallacy to give meaning to it.

>What are you talking about? It's an infinite regression.
And WHY does it regress? WHAT CAUSES IT TO "REGRESS". It doesn't explain itself!

>It's like a child asking "why" after every question.
And I guess you're too stupid to answer a question that a child asks. Really makes me think.

[Anonymous No.10363500]

>>10356202
a circular vortex, spinning, spinning

[Anonymous No.10363530]

>>10363346
>the universe doesn't plug shit into a calculator

[Anonymous No.10363566]

>>10363346
>And I guess you're too stupid to answer a question that a child asks
nice so you admit you're being a child

>>10363346
>And WHY does it regress? WHAT CAUSES IT TO "REGRESS"
>asking why and what causes it ad infinitum
nice job proving my point
> I just did! It's a privation of light. It has no properties
>doesn't know what proof is either
solid
>And you didn't explain the cause of this "force" called gravity either
i never called it a force, i'm not sure why you keep repeating that.
>infinity is incommensurable
nope, nice job misusing another word
>No, you need to "prove" it. There's nothing to "prove" about something that doesn't exist. Burden of proof is on you.
prove what? you're the one saying that gravity is not a force nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists
that is a negative statement. the burden of proof is on you to prove it. i never said it was a force, but you are saying it isn't.

in other words, if someone says "god exists" and another person replies "no he doesn't", the burden is proof is on both of them to make the claim.
>he argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

>So Gravity has no cause and therefore doesn't exist as a separate field modality
i'm saying that thinking things need a cause is a fallacy, not that there is no cause

[Anonymous No.10363605]

>>10363346
>>angry typing noises
>he doesn't deny it
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.10363638]

People In this thread really believe that a Jew proved that gravity is "warped space...?" I bet you also believe Jesus walked on water? Just because Jews say something is true doesn't make it so, they are the master of the lie.

[Anonymous No.10363777]

>>10363566
>nice so you admit you're being a child
Never admitted anything. You're the one who equated me to being a child. Can you both read and comprehend what you read before posting again?

>asking why and what causes it ad infinitum
infinity is not an argument. Why does it infinitely regress? If you can't answer then you have nothing left to offer me.

>nope, nice job misusing another word
Go measure it.

>you're the one saying that gravity is not a force nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists
that is a negative statement.

It was never proven to be a real force/ cause or phenomena to begin with so it's not a negative statement. I'm asking for the proof of what causes gravity since so many people seem to believe it is something to be disproved when there's no actual proof of it's existence to begin with.

>in other words, if someone says "god exists" and another person replies "no he doesn't", the burden is proof is on both of them to make the claim.
And if both cannot come up with a conclusion then it becomes unreifiable. First you have the difficulty of defining god, which both cannot do together or on their own.

One will be stuck claiming that he "knows of" that which is all knowing and omnipotent to him. He will also rely on other theurgists,"prophets" and other people like him who knows just as little as he to learn more of that which he is absent of (knowing god, divinity).
The other will be stuck forever looking for the order of the reality he lives in. He will forever be chasing knowledge and observing that he doesn't know (in order to know more, to understand more about the nature of the universe).

Both searching for the same unreifiable thing. That which they are ABSENT OF.

>i'm saying that thinking things need a cause is a fallacy, not that there is no cause
Then you get no effects. No qualities, no attributes, no properties. Cause at the very least must coexist with its effect and if it does then a "how" needs to be explained.

[Anonymous No.10363803]

>>10363777
>Never admitted anything
>"too stupid to answer a question that a child asks"

>Why does it infinitely regress?
if i give any answer as to what causes gravity you can then ask what causes that. this is tantamount to "who created god?" it's the wrong question. technically my argument is that it *doesn't* infinitely regress (via the fallacy of composition ie just because parts need a cause does not mean the whole itself needs a cause), I'm only saying this to use your logic against you


>It was never proven to be a real force/ cause or phenomena to begin with so it's not a negative statement

>that is a negative statement
and?

Saying
>gravity is not a force nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists
is a claim and it needs to be proven. the point of me mentioning negative and positive claims is because many autists think that just because they're saying that something *doesn't* exist means that they have no burden of proof. this is not the case. if you say gravity isn't a force, which you did, you have to prove it.

there's a fundamental difference between
>gravity isn't a force
and
>gravity was never proven to be a real force

[Anonymous No.10364127]

>>10356202
The answer to perpetual energy.

[Anonymous No.10364177]

>>10363803
>if i give any answer as to what causes gravity you can then ask what causes that.

Not if it is an uncaused first cause. If it were uncaused then then it would either begin to exist without a cause or did not begin and is self-evident. If it begins without a cause then take nothing and add nothing to it. You get nothing.

>is a claim and it needs to be proven.

Fine. "the effects of what humans call "gravitation" exist, but the cause of gravity is not known". It's the same as saying the "magical rope pulling force" exists but we don't know the cause of it. Now prove me wrong. "oh well you aren't describing what the ropes are". Oh okay then we'll call them "quantum ropes" and then continue the same shenanigans. If it's not known or knowable then is there at least a relationship to it and everything else?
Everything (mass) attracting everything is what we dub "gravity" and the described effect is observable, but that doesn't make it real much like how that wouldn't make a shadow real. How can there be ANY net "force" generated by the universe? It works as simply as possible because logically it has nothing else to work off of, no? It's a pressure mediation. There is no "force" whatsoever, there cannot logically be. It uses what it has by necessity, things move from where they are to where they aren't using themselves and the absence of themselves. Matter doesn't just collide into itself , it fills the "space"(absence) of WHERE IT IS NOT. That's why you get different qualities of matter depending on the coherency of them (like crystals, magnets, alloys, every element).

Acceleration towards an absence is NOT A FORCE. FORCE HAS MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION. You are talking about the absence of that magnitude and direction. One part of a pressure mediation conjugate.

>there's a fundamental difference between
>gravity isn't a force
>and
>gravity was never proven to be a real force

I'll stand by both.

[Anonymous No.10364179]

>>10356202
A illusion

[Anonymous No.10364182]

>>10357331
lmao

[Anonymous No.10364193]

>>10364177
>t. schizo

[Anonymous No.10364256]

gravity isnt top down, its bottom up.
centralisation compared to decentralisation.
and for that reason its not a force.

[Anonymous No.10364369]

its just a curve in spacetime bro
do you even lift bro

[Anonymous No.10364507]

>>10362838
>I don't give a shit I need a cause before a description.
You don't even know what basic Newtonian mechanics is right?

>The universe being physical.
Go suck /x/'s dick.

>You can define anything that has no basis in reality.
True, math is an example but sometimes abstraction relate to what we see, specially if they follow logical steps, that's because ultimately nothing can be originally conceived without the input of reality.
>Like unicorns
Bad example, even if wrong and false, unicorns are based on horses, and we're created in people's imagination because a dude was too dumb to describe a rinho.

>No fucking shit
You don't say.

>Compute data where
On your useless brain.
>You are making up data
Yes, based on what we perceive you can do that too, as long as your definitions don't contradict themselves, you yourself took the definition of pressure and fucked it up out of it's own definition brainlet.

>Still insists stupid shit about math.
Math is an abstract science but with real application.

>Ugh
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.10364583]

>>10363530
>that image

[Anonymous No.10364970]

>>10356202
An openGL simulation