explain to me how gravity works?

[Anonymous No.10697273]

how can there just be some magic force that pulls things together? isnt that just magnetism?

[Anonymous No.10697279]

>>10697273
it's complicated

[Anonymous No.10697289]

>>10697273
>how can there just be some magic force that pulls things together? isnt that just magnetism?
gravity is like evolution, they're useful for making models and coming up with theoretical ideas but neither actually exist in practice

[Anonymous No.10697292]

>>10697273
That's a big fishe.

[Anonymous No.10697294]

>>10697273
things like to go the quickest way possible

[Anonymous No.10697299]

>>10697273
Matter loves matter and it "ties a knot" with itself so to speak.

[Anonymous No.10697305]

strings

everything that has mass is essentially tethered to everything else that has mass with invisible elastic string

one the masses separate a certain distance the strings stop being as elastic but they are still there pulling subtly

[Anonymous No.10697316]

>>10697273
Whoah hang on a minute there we physicists don't do why questions we just figure out the math to model it.

[Anonymous No.10697325]

>>10697273
Right now, a meter is shorter than a meter is, right now.
We define the meter as a fraction of the speed of light, which is constant in all reference frame
The reason for the change in this unit, is space is actually slowly expanding. Yes, space itself
This expansion is attributed to dark energy
Gravity is less like a force, and more like a contraction of space between things

Hope that helps, no one really gets it, but yeh we’re tryn

[Anonymous No.10697346]

>>10697325
Brainfart time.
>This expansion is attributed to dark energy
>Gravity is less like a force, and more like a contraction of space between things
Is it?
I think gravity could be more like pressure potentially. It's more like a vector additional to space and time.

[Anonymous No.10697357]

>>10697346
>I think gravity could be more like pressure potentially.
Actually, I'm retarded. That's exactly what this anon >>10697325 said.

[Anonymous No.10697358]

>>10697316
This is the answer. /thread

[Anonymous No.10697364]

>>10697289
>i didn't evolve, not really
wanna bananna?

[Anonymous No.10697377]

>>10697357
Math is merely philosophy in detail.

[Anonymous No.10697394]

>>10697377
Whatever you say. The difference is that phisophers still can't into math, but wish they could and mathematicians don't give a fuck about philosophy beyond logical foundations.

[Anonymous No.10697395]

>>10697273
Matter attracts matter, the more matter there is the stronger and further it's attraction reaches out to. Less massive objects end up drawn towards more massive objects and interact with them in lots of ways like colliding with them, slingshotting past them, or getting pulled into an orbit around them.

[Anonymous No.10697404]

>>10697394
>The difference is that phisophers still can't into math
Math is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10697407]

>>10697404
>dude what is a subset
And yet philosophy isn't math

[Anonymous No.10697412]

>>10697407
Some would consider them synonymous thanks to the concept of logic.

[Anonymous No.10697414]

>>10697395
>Matter attracts matter
Why? That is the question in this thread.

[Anonymous No.10697428]

>>10697412
>Some would consider
Yeah, dumb people

[Anonymous No.10697434]

>>10697428
>what is duality
Is that not something we define with mathematical logic?

[Anonymous No.10697439]

>>10697434
A proper subset=/=the set dumbass

[Anonymous No.10697466]

>>10697273
Empty space has energy. If you condense enough empty space you get matter.
The space around the matter is now stretched inward toward the matter.
When a body orbits another more massive body, it's really following a straight line that is curved.

[Anonymous No.10697469]

>>10697273
Electric Universe Theory

[Anonymous No.10697483]

>>10697395
>>10697466
>>10697469
it would be soooo nice if gravity was just charged matter meaning that the creation of the universe gave every piece of matter the same basic charge (be it positive ir negative, but the same) this way every piece of matter would have a natural "electrostatical" attraction the more matter you get together the more charge the object would get gaining a bigger "charge potential" to attract other matter... the "inverse square rule" would fit perfectly (gravity and electric force actually behaves the same by this law)...

>and any obseravtion of repulsive nature in the universe would be because theres different electrostatic charges acting

[Anonymous No.10697490]

>>10697483
according to Richard Feynman (the great genius) it's like a rabbit's hole. It's also like when your aunt slips on some ice

[Anonymous No.10697496]

>>10697316
You are pretty useless then.
This is like saying it is magic, unsatisfactory.

[Anonymous No.10697550]

>>10697466
>Empty space has energy
some people propose that maybe this is the "eather" , the fabric of "bare space" is a subtrate of energy, what kind of energy or how could this be measure or detected? I dont know but the first obvious manifestation would be electromanetic waves (meaning the eather/energy fabric is the medium wich is perturbed by electromagnetism creating electomacnetic waves) unironically maxwell was in love with the idea of eather and I think that even plank was kinda into it too... because is just so elegant and would explain a lot of things for example how can there be a wave without anything to wave upon...


>>10697466
>The space around the matter is now stretched inward toward the matter

you mean a rarefaction of this energy fabric/substrate... so, there would be no time interdependance with space? in contrast to general relativity that puts a direct interdependance of space and time (space is now considered "spacetime" ) and this is the way it explains gravity (any mass distords "spacetime" and this distorsion creates a void, this void is gravity, a "demi-void" I shoud say, a "full-void" would be a black hole) btw I think this is also a very elegant explanation.

does anyone know if the electromagnetic waves phenomena is actually waving the "spacetime" fabric too? any hints to this? in other words if "spacetime" is actually the aether-fabric(the medium of electromagnetic tranfer)? if spacetime can affect light this could mean that light (or electromagnetic phenomena) could be spacetime waving (!?) (in much more minute scale/intensity than the disturbance creaded by the earth or the sun OBVIOUSLY!...)

[Anonymous No.10697558]

>>10697469
pseudoscientific nonsense

[Anonymous No.10697559]

>>10697273
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcvq1DAM-DE

[Anonymous No.10698564]

>>10697346
Gravity is a geometry. The planets describe eliptic trayectories but taking in consideration a 4th dimension (time) they walk a straigth line

[Anonymous No.10698575]

>>10697550
>empty space has energy

Search Casimir

[Anonymous No.10698604]

>>10697305
>everything that has mass is essentially tethered to everything else that has mass with invisible elastic string

So what physical property of matter gives matter "mass"?

What's the difference between mass and non-mass?

[Anonymous No.10698854]

>>10697496
Yep. Turns out physicists dont know the fundamental explanation for anything (every single explanation ITT can be responded to with yet another "okay but why?" question). They just find fancy ways to describe how nature behaves. That's okay. Its a redpill you have to swallow.

[Anonymous No.10698859]

>>10698604
Mass is the property of matter that gives it inertia.

[Anonymous No.10698934]

>>10698859

So besides calling it a property, what is the physical basis that distinguishes something with mass from something without mass?

[Anonymous No.10698956]

>>10698934

[Anonymous No.10699043]

are gravitons real?

[Anonymous No.10699063]

>>10698934
Inertia

[Anonymous No.10699105]

>>10697273
>how can there just be some magic force that pulls things together? isnt that just magnetism?

attraction at a distance is false.

real world mechanical collisions of photons (light/energy/heat...) are the cause of the effect that is gravity.

inb4 all of sci calls me wrong, I know I am correct :^)

[Anonymous No.10699153]

>>10699063
but photons have inertia too

[Anonymous No.10699237]

>>10699153
Are you absolutely sure?

[Anonymous No.10699245]

>>10699153
No they dont

[Anonymous No.10699344]

>>10699245
yes they do. if you shine light of enough intensity towards an object, it will move. for example, with the right laser, you can levitate a small pellet above the beam. photons interact with gravity as well.

[Anonymous No.10699347]

>>10697273
What do you mean? There's nothing to get. It literally is a magic force. It's a fundamental component of reality.

[Anonymous No.10699350]

>>10697273
for the same reason electromagnetism works. its a field which is mediated by the higs-boson, like how the electromagnetic field is mediated by the electron.

just because you're too dumb to understand doesnt make it fake.

[Anonymous No.10699351]

>>10699344
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3B2oL5dgI

[Anonymous No.10699362]

>>10697414
behaviour of space changes as matter is introduced. If anything you should be questioning why space itself interacts with matter at all - but all evidence and experiments point to the fact that it does.
If philosophy and analogies are more your think we're like ink blots on a blank canvas. The question isn't "why do the ink blots move on the canvas", it's "why does the canvas let the blots move by themselves". This inevitably gets into the nature of time and such. We don't fully understand gravitational phenomenas (unaccounted for sources of gravity), but we're at the point where it's not much stranger than time.

[Anonymous No.10699609]

>>10699350
this post kills the physicist

[Anonymous No.10699627]

>>10697273
Yeah, I remember taking my physics in classical mechanics. I could not understand the way of thinking that had to be implemented to do some of the problems and gravity was one of those things I never understood. The idea is a large body exerts a pull on other bodies and smaller less massive ones are pulled in. If we consider how just about everything is atoms and particles they also have attractive forces. An atom's nucleus has electrons orbiting it but never getting pulled in. Apply this on a larger scale and that's how the universe works through gravity, that's the only way I can make sense of it. Electrostatic forces at work on a massive scale.

[Anonymous No.10699655]

>>10699350
>for the same reason electromagnetism works. its a field which is mediated by the higs-boson, like how the electromagnetic field is mediated by the electron.

Uhm, i don't know if you imply that, but actually, electromagnetical forces aren't carried by the Electron, Electrons are Letpons, not Bosons. Bosons carry forces, therefore in the case of electromagnetism its the Photon as well as the Z and W Boson. Bosons carry forces, not Leptons. Electrons just determine the charge, thats it

[Anonymous No.10699657]

>>10699609
>this post kills the physicist
no?
gravitational field theory is well defined. the extra dimensional holistic field mathmatics which unify the standard model, quantum mechanic, and general relativity have been understood for decades. We have the math, and it works. Problem is that we cant meaningfully demonstrate the extradimensionality of reality with the energy magnitudes of the testing we can do. Check back in if we ever harness stars, or get fusion reactors off the ground. maybe then we could warp reality enough to do meaningful tests. or, you know, maybe we just open the way to the realm of chaos.

[Anonymous No.10700077]

>>10699655
you are correct as per the current "fundamental particule model"... i got to admit I haven't study it as much as I should so maybe you could tell me if I'm correct about this assumption: the photon is the "carrier" for the electromagnetic waves , they don't need a substrata carrier because the photon is the carrier (?).

[Anonymous No.10700984]

>>10700077

Yes electricity is photon flow, valence electrons are carried along for the ride though.

Magnetic field is coherence locally in photon spin.

Electric light is false.

All is Photonic.

[Anonymous No.10701003]

>>10699063
>Inertia

Inertia is the result of mass, which you haven't defined.

[Anonymous No.10701017]

>>10699657
>gravitational field theory is well defined

So how come you still don't know what mass is?

[Anonymous No.10701041]

>>10697273
Masses attract masses, the reason doesn't really matter and can't be proven empirically

[Anonymous No.10701055]

>>10701003
Inertia is the property that an object resists acceleration. Mass is how we quantize inertia. Everything is defined.

[Anonymous No.10701058]

>>10701041
A man can live happily without finding out why masses attract each other, but "doesn't really matter"? It could be the greatest discovery of all. It could lead to incredible technology.

[Anonymous No.10701077]

>>10698934
A term like - m^2 phi^2 in the Lagrangian (or - m psibar psi for fermions)

[Anonymous No.10701127]

>>10701003
>Inertia is the result of mass, which you haven't defined.

Inertia is inertia. Mass is the result of inertia, for if matter could not remain unchanged then it would have no coherency. It would be an indeterminable substance with no order, which is obviously not the case.

>>10701055
>Mass is how we quantize inertia
Actually a better explanation

>>10700984
There is nothing "flowing" in the copper lines. It is nothing other than a shift in polarity creating perturbations in what is already present. It's like saying water flows from your hand when you splash it in a pond.

[Anonymous No.10701163]

>>10701127
>Inertia is inertia.

Wrong. Inertia is the radiative influence of the remaining mass in the universe relative to the mass in question.

>Mass is the result of inertia,

Said no one, ever.

I don't even think you know what inertia is... Please stop participating in this thread, because you might scare off someone with something intelligent to contribute for a change.

[Anonymous No.10701168]

>>10701055

>Inertia is the property that an object resists acceleration.

Inertia is not a property of matter, like mass.

Science cannot explain inertia, but merely describes.

Likewise, science does not know what mass is.

[Anonymous No.10701196]

>>10701163
>the tendency to do nothing is definable as something
idiot

>Said no materialist ever.
FTFY

>don't even think you know what inertia is..
No one does really.

>>10701168
>Inertia is not a property of matter, like mass.
>Science cannot explain inertia, but merely describes.
>Likewise, science does not know what mass is.

You don't say. Descriptions are indeed not explanations, which is why any bum on the street can give you a description and no explanation. Contradictions aren't explanations either so don't do it again. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10701200]

>>10697273
Ok...the more stuff, the stronger the pull.

[Anonymous No.10701717]

>>10701127
thou hast ignored DC

[Anonymous No.10701745]

>>10701017
seems like you're the only one who doesnt understand what mass is.

but seriously, the whole "no one understands mass and gravity" meme is fake news that retards love to kick around.

[Anonymous No.10701748]

>>10701717
Yeah, even with DC electrons barely move

[Anonymous No.10701750]

>>10697273
Take the density pill

[Anonymous No.10701754]

>>10701750
things dont separate based on their densities without gravity.

[Anonymous No.10701767]

>>10701750
Do flatearthers not realize that Archimedes' principle only exists because of gravity?

[Anonymous No.10701845]

>>10697273
It's not a force, nor is it magic. It's things traveling along the curve of spacetime.

[Anonymous No.10702552]

>>10701058
>It could lead to incredible technology
Doubt it, it would be like finding out things about black holes hundreds of millions of light-years away, it satisfies curiosity but does not really have any application. Plus I doubt theories about gravity can be proven, it's all very abstract

[Anonymous No.10702566]

>>10702552
just think about how many of our tech is about fighting gravity. gaining any further knowledge about its true nature would absolutely lead to interesting tech.

[Anonymous No.10702691]

>>10701196

>the tendency to do nothing is definable as something

So your definition of mass is the "tendency to do nothing"?

Lmao. That's adorable. You're literally the next Einstein.

[Anonymous No.10702694]

>>10701745

So none of you have been able to define mass.

All you said is that masses interact via inertia.

That's not even vaguely close to explaining anything.

In fact, I know for a fact that the body of science does not know the mechanism for inertia. Mach's principle is just a theory.

[Anonymous No.10702898]

>>10702694
>cant define math
sounds like a you problem bud. lots of people have zero problems defining mass, and using those definitions to solve lots of problems.

[Anonymous No.10702903]

>>10701168
>Science cannot explain inertia, but merely describes
Awesome. It's almost like the whole point of science is to describe and model rather than "explain".

[Anonymous No.10702932]

>>10697273
>explain to me how gravity works?

[Anonymous No.10702980]

>>10702903

Umm, I think they've been trying to explain a lot of the fundamental processes.

I suspect gravity and inertia will remain out of the reach of humanity. There are bio-physical limits to the depth of abstraction our minds can perform.

There are only a few people that can biologically understand the theories of Einstein, for example.

[Anonymous No.10703659]

>>10702691

>So your definition of mass is the "tendency to do nothing"?

If it was always doing something and never became coherent then what "mass" would form? You wouldn't have protons neutrons or anything conglomerating together. You'd have light and electricity, always moving and never forming mass. Mass is defined PURELY by inertia aka "the tendency to do nothing". Some masses move less, some move more. Some are so unstable that they could explode and sublimate entire city blocks, some are so inert that they're older than the alleged age of the universe. It depends on the POTENTIAL it has. I guess you could also say that "potential" is the same thing as "inertia", but that doesn't get you anywhere closer to an explanation of where either come from.

Mass certainly isn't "the tendency to do something", caused and controlled by what? Mass is a privation inertia. This is has been known for hundreds of years so I don't see what the issue is. There is literally no human word or comprehension beyond the simple term "INERTia" or "the tendency to do nothing or remain unchanged". That isn't "something" tangible, but it isn't "nothing" because it's still referring to the "something" as having the property of "inertia". Same with "potential". There's the potential for something and the potential to lose something, in the end it's just an indeterminable tug of war of "inertia".

So "mass" is basically dependent on how much inertia it has. That's why water turns into ice and steam. It's all just dependent on how inert "water" is. If it becomes so inert that it ceases motion then it isn't exactly "water" or "mass" now is it?

>>10701717
What is flowing? There is nothing flowing, it's a discharge of pressure.

>>10702903
They think it's a distinction without a difference actually.

>>10702980
"light is a wave AND a particle (the action of something not yet defined properly and a mathematical abstraction)" -t. fucking crackpot

[Anonymous No.10703672]

Why do you assume that existence of a magical force, which pulls things together such as magnetism is compeletly normal, but magical force, which pulls things together such as gravity isn't?

[Anonymous No.10703705]

>>10703672
>Why do you assume that existence of a magical force, which pulls things together such as magnetism is compeletly normal

Ironically the word "Magnet" is derived from "Magic". Besides that point, if you think a magnetism is "magical" or a "force" or "pulls things" then you're doing it wrong. There is absolutely no difference between a magnet or an unmagnitized piece of ceramic iron boron of the same composition, other than coherency of its subatomic makeup. That means "all the atoms are the same but just aligned facing the same way", which isn't a fucking "force" nor "attraction/repulsion". It's a mutual impelling.

Second, magnets and magnetism are empirically observable, as is their uses in making electricity itself. It is a conjugate of it, you CANNOT have electricity without magnetism and vice versa. You could say the same for gravity, but the explanation isn't there. You can't differentiate it from "magnetic attraction" other than the cop out of "well duh planet and sun aren't made of iron!" Well protip: Every element is affected in some way by magnetism, some more than others. IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT INERTIA DOES TO MATTER, but hey "it's not made of iron, colbalt or nickle" right?

[Anonymous No.10703715]

>>10703705
*if you think a magnet or magnetism

[Anonymous No.10704698]

>>10703705
>What if I told you magnetism is an expression of a very particular type of energy in another universe.
>And gravity is as well.
>What we see as gravity, from our frame of reference i.e. down to a 1/2 ns (half life of beryllium 13 isotope) is in fact, what you have described here as magnetic resonance

btw AMA former DOE lab monkey here for a bit

[Anonymous No.10704702]

>>10703705
>You could say the same for gravity, but the explanation isn't there
Nor is the explanation for the electric force, but Im willing to bet you believe in it. That's very arbitrary of you to claim gravity doesnt exist while maintaining electric forces and magnetic forces.

[Anonymous No.10704716]

oh dear lord.
if it is observable it exists.
you could effectively argue that neutrinos, for example don't exist, but both of the force you mentioned do in fact exist in the natural universe (at least in ours lol)
in my experience as a government scientist and researcher I can tell you that we are very incapable of fathoming what these forces really are, so we come up with more complex ideas to try and explain them.
in my opinion it is not arbitrary to throw out gravity, it is just a duplicate of a force we wont begin to understand for another 200 years

sorry for bad grammar i am tired ;>

[Anonymous No.10704780]

>>10704698
>What if I told you magnetism is an expression of a very particular type of energy in another universe.
>And gravity is as well.
>What we see as gravity, from our frame of reference i.e. down to a 1/2 ns (half life of beryllium 13 isotope) is in fact, what you have described here as magnetic resonance

"Potentially"

>>10704702
>Nor is the explanation for the electric force
Correct, because it is not a "force" to begin with. You can't explain something when you start with a false premise of it. It is unified with magnetism. That is literally how electricity is made. You polarize a dielectic object (with a magnet).

>That's very arbitrary of you to claim gravity doesnt exist while maintaining electric forces and magnetic forces.

Arbitrary how? One has empirical evidence (the fucking device you're using right now for instance), and the other doesn't.

>Gravity is caused and dictated by the uneven distribution of mass
>The arrangement of what is already present is a "force"

>Gravity is a force by which mass draws objects towards it's center
It's the same fucking thing as saying "HEY THIS APPLE FALLS TO THE EARTH". Congrats, it's a fucking description of what has happened. You just "discovered" what every person on the planet has already done.[[[
>towards its center
Where at the center of mass there is no gravity!
>The cause of gravity is no gravity

????

[Anonymous No.10704781]

>>10697292
for you

[Anonymous No.10705143]

>>10697289
Viruses evolve every year.

[Anonymous No.10705152]

It's at the tip of my brain, I know I know, lol Just seems like I need to dig it out! Kinda like gravity itself! Some is in this universe and a bit in some other, there always seems that a bit is missing, not perceived, making everything a bit empty! Like atoms and so on! lol

[Anonymous No.10705962]

>>10697273

The Elements are not only symbolic of Subjective states - Air-Intuition, Fire-Thinking, Water-Feeling, Earth-Sensing - but they become one another in Aeonic or Ideal Nature, bilaterally, the eye through which God sees Man is the same as the eye through which Man sees God and such. In straying from, or forgetting about, or refracting out of God, Man still corresponds to Nature but makes it malignant as per God's lenience. Onto its initial quality of Phenomenal communion, whereby the "Object" eternally is and is perfectly consummated simultaneously, Earth-Sensing takes on superfluous morbid qualities. Perfect coincidence of eternal being and perfect consummation not only does not entail attraction between Man and Phenomenon, because they are One in that sense, but neither does it entail attraction within itself in its non-Duality, because the consummation itself is also perfect. It is not wanting that is eternally satisfied, but the inversion or destruction of want. But through Man, an impression of change and limit is ascribed to eternal being, and an impression of increasingly incomplete comprehension and constant repelling is ascribed to perfect consummation. This is not "illusory" in the Solipsistic sense, God is not a tyrant and allows Man true Ontological participation, it is merely Ontologically redundant. Phenomena thus both attract and repel Man and each other, simultaneously per both impressions. The ground ever pulls me down but never pervades me. An awful polarity, a crucifixion, if you will.

>And that mystery knoweth why the matter of the world hath arisen and why it [the world] will be utterly destroyed.

[Anonymous No.10706062]

Gravity is like a game of tightrope

[Anonymous No.10706355]

>>10702903
>. It's almost like the whole point of science is to describe and model rather than "explain".

btw this is what newton and maxwell did (just to name two) they put a foundation for modeling the phenomena but not an explanation.
later the investigations of JJ thomson gave the discovery of the electron explaining electrical phenomena on a fundamental level and general relativity explained gravity on a fundamental level (space and time are intimately interrelated creating a "fabric" and gravity is a perturbation in spacetime)

[Anonymous No.10706487]

I sometimes forget how retarded most of /sci/ is.

Matter is gay turtles. That's why it's always attractive but not very strong.

[Anonymous No.10706635]

>>10706355
>later the investigations of JJ thomson gave the discovery of the electron explaining electrical phenomena
But there is no empirical evidence of an electron particle.

>general relativity explained gravity on a fundamental level
No they described what was occurring using quantification.

>space and time are intimately interrelated creating a "fabric" and gravity is a perturbation in spacetime
"space" has no properties and acts on nothing, neither does "time" because time is a measurement.
>The actions of the absence of action and a measurement cause gravity
Shit doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.10706638]

>>10706635
Correct. Modern physics is socially acceptable schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.10706950]

>>10706635
>But there is no empirical evidence of an electron particle.
well, quamtum field theory propose that this particules do not really exist as such that they are just perturbations on this quantum field


>"space" has no properties and acts on nothing, neither does "time" because time is a measurement.

ken wheeler makes a logical mystake with this because the ether could be considered a property of space just as quantum fields are considered a property of space or as the "spacetime" is considered a property of space.

maybe the "the universe is vibrations" is correct after all... and you didn't even notice that conventional science was actually much closer to the "alternatives" than you guys though...

[Anonymous No.10706952]

>>10697289
>This bait

[Anonymous No.10706988]

did somebody say the answer? the answer was 'mass bends space in a way that makes matter falls towards each other, and gravity is less of a force and more the manifestation of you falling towards the earth in the fourth dimension'

I got halfway through the thread and got fed up by brainlet answers

[Anonymous No.10706992]

>>10706988
What is space made of?

[Anonymous No.10707007]

>>10706992
for the most part, vacuum. it's just space. it was one point that kept expanding, and it expanded to the point that its contents have made an entire universe

it's really not mass that bends space, really energy, but mass is compressed energy and that's the reason it can bend space when lasers and wifi can't

and mass has energy because everything is moving along the 4th direction at the speed of light, and since most masses aren't moving through space at anywhere close to c the rest of that "lightspeed momentum" is used in a way to keep that mass solid and that energy contained

t. guy with 12 community college credits

[Anonymous No.10707019]

>>10707007
>for the most part, vacuum. it's just space. it was one point that kept expanding, and it expanded to the point that its contents have made an entire universe
Space is made of space? Circular logic. What is actually bending?
>it's really not mass that bends space, really energy, but mass is compressed energy and that's the reason it can bend space when lasers and wifi can't
Mass = energy? More circular logic that doesn't mean anything. Is space energy too? Energy bending energy?
>and mass has energy because everything is moving along the 4th direction at the speed of light, and since most masses aren't moving through space at anywhere close to c the rest of that "lightspeed momentum" is used in a way to keep that mass solid and that energy contained
What's the difference between solid mass and contained energy? Is space energy? Is space mass?

[Anonymous No.10707035]

>>10706950
>well, quamtum field theory propose that this particules do not really exist as such that they are just perturbations on this quantum field

Well that's fantastic. If only you could explain what causes a "field" and how it's quantized then maybe you'd be onto something.

>ken wheeler makes a logical mystake with this because the ether could be considered a property of space just as quantum fields are considered a property of space or as the "spacetime" is considered a property of space.

But what is fucking "space"? See you can assign whatever attribute you want to it, it doesn't make it real. If you can't differentiate this "space" from "the shit in space" then I fail to see what the difference is. It's a medium. You can call it "ether" or "zeropoint" or "quantum this that or whatever", it doesn't really matter. It is "shit mutually impelling one another in union and repulsion". Which.
Isn't a force
Isn't time
Isn't Gravity
Isn't "space" connotatively or denotatively

How is a field a property of space?
>"here's a field, a property of space"
>A property of space? So what is space?
>"well uh it's this large place that's almost devoid of motion, but not completely."
>so it's emptiness and void? So it's nothing and doesn't actually exist?
>"Well uh no, it's got properties like fields and spacetime.
>Well that doesn't tell me what it is. How can it be a property of itself? How can a measurement be a property? Does it just define itself?
>"well I don't know but quantum this that or the other"
>If a field is a property of space then why does a magnet and a planet have a field? Is a magnet and mass "space"?
>"Well aunt Minnie slipped on ice..."

>maybe the "the universe is vibrations" is correct after all... and you didn't even notice that conventional science was actually much closer to the "alternatives" than you guys though...

"Vibrations" of what? Of space? What is vibrating? Emptiness is vibrating? This is what I mean, you can't reify space.

[Anonymous No.10707040]

>>10706992
Space.

[Anonymous No.10707042]

>>10707035
*assign whatever property you want to it (space).

[Anonymous No.10707070]

>>10707019
look dude, the word is right there. "space". it's just the emptyness out there. its permeated by fields of energy completely throughout, and it makes up the known universe, but you might as well ask why evolution happened

I guess there is no difference between solid mass and contained energy, which was kind of my point. space is not energy. space is not mass. And saying "mass = energy is circular" dismisses an understanding made only in the last 100 years that revolutionized our knowledge of physics. you might be coming here asking questions you don't want to understand the answers to

[Anonymous No.10707090]

>>10707070
look dude, the word is right there. "space". it's just the emptyness out there
So it DOESN'T EXIST

>here is emptiness
>I am here observing it
>I am here
>In emptiness

It makes no fucking sense. The conventional nomenclature of "space" as this void vacuum where there is nothing occurring is a fucking psychosis that's been reified "as something". Kind of like how "time" has been reified even though it's a goddamn measurement with no properties either. Neither of these have any basis in reality, they have no substance and are not a phenomena, modality, or cause to anything.

>just look up this word that's been given meaning to by an ignorant group of retards

not science.

[Anonymous No.10707095]

>>10707090
The absense of things is itself a thing.

[Anonymous No.10707103]

>>10707090
okay, then you're right. it doesn't exist. it's the absence of existence. we just have a definition for that. are you happy now?

[Anonymous No.10707106]

>>10707095
>The absense of things is itself a thing.

>absence is present

Jesus Christ you must be trolling or something.

[Anonymous No.10707109]

>>10707090
(cont) where matter exists is literally where there was space for stuff that was present to coalesce and create things that existed. stars are just where so much hydrogen compressed it started blowing up. planets are just something something heavier elements from earlier stellar deaths somehow being stuck on the fringes and coalesced into as many individual units there was space for

are you happy now??

[Anonymous No.10707115]

>>10707103
>it's the absence of existence. we just have a definition for that.

Descriptions are not explanations.

>the absence of something exists and is definable

Another troll.

>>10707109
No. You still haven't told be what space is. You referred to it in a past-tense manner, which is even more indicative that it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10707120]

>>10707040
Circular logic. Meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10707134]

>>10707070
>"space". it's just the emptyness out there. its permeated by fields of energy completely throughout, and it makes up the known universe
Sounds like a load of sci-fi horseshit to me. How can "emptyness" bend!?
>I guess there is no difference between solid mass and contained energy, which was kind of my point. space is not energy. space is not mass. And saying "mass = energy is circular" dismisses an understanding made only in the last 100 years that revolutionized our knowledge of physics. you might be coming here asking questions you don't want to understand the answers to
"Space" can bend according to you, doesn't that require energy? What the fuck is "space" if it isn't energy? What is bending?

[Anonymous No.10707135]

>>10707115
dude, you're trolling. you clearly just can't wrap your head around the idea of us being surrounded by a big bunch of NOTHINGNESS!!! NOTHINGNESS that extends for Billions and Billions of lightyears! you probably don't even know what the cosmic microwave background is. get out of here already

[Anonymous No.10707143]

>>10707135
>dude, you're trolling. you clearly just can't wrap your head around the idea of us being surrounded by a big bunch of NOTHINGNESS!!! NOTHINGNESS that extends for Billions and Billions of lightyears! you probably don't even know what the cosmic microwave background is. get out of here already

Huh, maybe because there's nothing there to wrap my head around.

[Anonymous No.10707149]

>>10707134
an emptyness bends because that emptiness still has a shape, in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. gravity is us falling towards points in 3d space where matter coalesce in 4d. we fall because the shape of the nothingness "bends" in a way where falling down is the shorter fall than falling up. capisce?

does it require energy? idfk. but only matter, and large masses of matter at that, have enough energy to bend 4d space towards it

[Anonymous No.10707152]

>>10707143
I said git

[Anonymous No.10707154]

>>10707106
It’s almost like you’re pretending to be ignorant about what words mean.

>>10707120
Nope.

[Anonymous No.10707165]

>>10707149
>>10707152

>>10707154
"Absent" means "not there" last time I checked. So if it's "not there" then how the fuck do you define it you mental midget? You're basically saying "this thing that isn't here is here and is something" which is a contradiction and a completely ridiculous statement.

[Anonymous No.10707168]

>>10707165
will you be satisfied if we define it as the opposite of mass?

[Anonymous No.10707183]

>>10707168
>will you be satisfied if we define it as the opposite of mass?

That depends if you can logically explain what mass is and what causes it. (good luck)

[Anonymous No.10707196]

>>10707149
>an emptyness bends because that emptiness still has a shape, in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.
What is this schizo babble? Emptiness has a shape because of some made up dimensions? Can you explain what "time" is made of?
>gravity is us falling towards points in 3d space where matter coalesce in 4d
What are "points"? Are they mathematical abstractions that don't actually exist?
>we fall because the shape of the nothingness "bends" in a way where falling down is the shorter fall than falling up. capisce?
You're schizo, cah-PEESH? Applying properties to "nothingness"? What's wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.10707218]

>>10707165
>"Absent" means "not there" last time I checked. So if it's "not there" then how the fuck do you define it you mental midget? You're basically saying "this thing that isn't here is here and is something" which is a contradiction and a completely ridiculous statement.

You’re amazingly slow.
I’ll hold your hand through this
Thing
circumstances, conditions, or matters that are unspecified.
"things haven't gone entirely according to plan"
synonyms: matters, affairs, circumstances, conditions, relations; More
state of affairs, situation, life
"how are things with you?"
an abstract entity, quality, or concept.
"mourning and depression are not the same thing"
synonyms: characteristic, quality, attribute, property, trait, feature, point, aspect, facet, element More
"one of the things I like about you is your optimism"
fact, piece of information, point, detail, particular, factor
"there's another thing you should know"
an example or type of something.
"the game is the latest thing in family fun"
INFORMAL
a situation or activity of a specified type or quality.
"your being here is just a friendship thing, OK?"

The absense of things in a place can be defined as a “thing”, because it is a condition, a state.

[Anonymous No.10707231]

>>10707196
>>10707183

jesus, you both are clearly just obstinate retards who are making no attempt to understand plain-ass english. if you're not going to understand what a "point" is and imply I'm bringing up mathbabble you're the schizo. if you're too retarded to imagine why time might be the fourth dimension (read: a direction in one way or another) you can fuck right off, time and gravity aren't physical things we can perceive

have either of you ever even read a book on these subjects?

[Anonymous No.10707276]

>>10707231
What's a "point" schizo?

>if you're too retarded to imagine why time might be the fourth dimension (read: a direction in one way or another) you can fuck right off, time and gravity aren't physical things we can perceive
"Time" is a direction is it? But not a physical thing? Then how can it have a direction? Time is simply a concept, you can't turn it into something physical that has a "direction" or a "dimension" and therefore is "scientific". This shows a complete philosophical misunderstanding.

>have either of you ever even read a book on these subjects?
I know what the scripture is, it's all retarded. I've read your meat puppet Hawkings dumb ideas about time. I bet you actually believe he lived until 70+ with ALS don't you?

[Anonymous No.10707290]

>>10707276
>whats a point, schizo?

[Anonymous No.10707295]

>>10707276
you speak english, right, pajeet? you know what a point is, right, you stupid poo-in-the-loo?

[Anonymous No.10707299]

>>10707290
>>10707295
It's an imaginary mathematical abstraction isn't it schizo(s)?

[Anonymous No.10707301]

>>10707218
>an abstract entity, quality, or concept.
Okay you got me. "Space is as real as unicorns and leprechauns". Unless you want to actually explain how it has an existence in reality that is.

>The absence of things in a place an be defined as a “thing”
Contradiction. What "thing"? It is absent of being definable as thing. Unless it still exists and has simply moved from one place to another that is. What place does "space" go when it moves?

>because it is a condition, a state.
Of what? You still have to specify the fucking thing that is in a "condition". Kind of like how there are "states OF matter". What is the condition of absence? To be absent of conditions? That's not a condition, that's the LACK of conditions
.
>>10707231
>if you're too retarded to imagine why time might be
>imagine why time might be
I could laugh at the irony of this post but I'll humor you

>if you're too retarded to imagine why time might be the fourth dimension (read: a direction in one way or another) you can fuck right off,
>4th dimension
>because "dimensionality" and "no dimensionality" aren't complicated enough so we have to reify another measurement into the equation

How is the frequency of what something does a "dimension" let alone a thing that exists? It's "the thing" and "what it does". How you you measure it is IRRELEVANT to how the universe actually works. It doesn't plug seconds and minutes into a fucking calculator to make shit spin. Unless there is a "beginning" or "end" that is, and that is illogical because then there would be a irrational first cause that starts for no reason whatsoever and ends for no reason whatsoever. And if you were to explain that "reason", all you would conjure up is religious bullshit. There is no first cause or "time frame" to measure such lunacy by.
>time and gravity aren't physical things we can perceive
Because we made them up. Kind of like how we made up unicorns and can't actually perceive a real life unicorn.

[Anonymous No.10707337]

>>10707301
you're answer doesn't matter to me, because you asked me to define matter as a reply, which I had already done well enough that you stopped hounding me to elaborate, concluding what I've known since I called it: you re just trolling, bro

same for that other retard who thinks I'm trying to speak Math at him. or maybe he just really is retarded

[Anonymous No.10707356]

>>10707301
this post is more schizo than anything I've posted lmao

[Anonymous No.10707402]

>>10697273
God made it that way.

[Anonymous No.10707409]

>>10707337
>you're answer doesn't matter to me, because you asked me to define matter as a reply, which I had already done well enough that you stopped hounding me to elaborate, concluding what I've known since I called it

Are you high or something? Did you read anything in this post >>10707301 particularly the parts where I mention that all the shit you said basically doesn't mean anything and doesn't explain shit? Yeah maybe you missed that part. You can call that "trolling" if you want, I just listed logical facts and pushed you into a hole that you dug yourself. If the point of this post was "I don't care but want to get a last word in without making a counterargument or a clear point" then congrats, you've accomplished this.

>same for that other retard who thinks I'm trying to speak Math at him.

You are speaking math you ignorant fuck. You're referring to "direction", "time" and "4th dimension" which are mathematical abstractions.

>>10707356
>this post is more schizo than anything I've posted lmao

And yet no one seems to be able to logically refute ii without using a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. Absences fall under it so it would be prudent and wise not to try and define them as something. However, you can define them by what they are not.

>thing is absent
>what thing?
>well it's not this thing
>or that thing
>etc.

[Anonymous No.10707417]

>>10707301

>How is the frequency of what something does a dimension?

Nigga what?

[Anonymous No.10707434]

>>10707417
>How is the frequency of what something does a dimension?
A translation of:
>"time dimension"
I know right? It doesn't make sense does it? Actions of things aren't actual things which is why time doesn't fucking exist.

[Anonymous No.10707436]

>>10697273
Still fishing

[Anonymous No.10707447]

>>10707409
lol you typed more than me I win. read a book, retard

by the way that other anon you responded to wasn't me, schizo. I explained mass in my first posts

[Anonymous No.10707456]

Inertia is thrust which is caused by a transference of momentum from the collisions of a body of mass with some medium. That medium is called spacetime or the aether or whatever. It doesn't matter what you call it. The waves that traverse this medium move at the speed of light because of the physical properties of the constituent parts that compose this medium. If two bodies of mass occupy this medium, they will attract one another because of the destructive interference of the waves they produce. This is the phenomenon of gravitation. Thank you for your time, and have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.10707485]

>>10707447
>lol you typed more than me

Oh no, I elaborate and explain things more than you do. You really got me there.

>by the way that other anon you responded to wasn't me, schizo. I explained mass in my first posts
Good thing you used the name field so I could properly reply to you and see your "explanation" of mass. Hell for all you know I'm not even the same person you've been replying to either! Lets just completely forget about the discussion entirely and focus one making fun of specific persons who make logical points.

>>10707456
>Inertia is thrust

>Thrust comes from objects ability to remain unchanged

>caused by a transference of momentum from the collisions of a body of mass with some medium.

What is the difference between the medium and mass?

[Anonymous No.10707492]

>>10707485
I should say inertia is the net thrust caused by this transference of momentum but I think that much is to be understood. You're just being pedantic.

[Anonymous No.10707507]

>>10707492
>You're just being pedantic.

If you cannot differentiate mass from the medium then your premise;
>transference of momentum from the collisions of a body of mass with some medium.

of what you think inertia is false.

[Anonymous No.10707513]

>>10699344
>>10699351
It's not the light hitting the surface that causes force/acceleration, it's the surface absorbing and expelling electromagnetic energy, which propels it in a (near) frictionless environment.
Photons objectively have no mass (and thus no inertia, and no force). It's the basis to the whole "speed of light is the speed limit of the universe".
Side note, the universe doesn't actually care about the speed of light. It's the speed of information that's the real limit. Light and other massless particles have no inertia and no resistance and can reach that speed limit.

To further drive the point, mass is a convenient term for "rest energy". Photons do not rest.

Also to answer this question:
>>10698934
The higgs field. It's the field that interacts with all particles (some more than others), and gives resistance to motion. The more your particles interact with the higgs field, the harder you are to move, the more mass you are said to have.
Photons and gluons do not interact with the higgs field (why I don't know, but no experiment shows they do) and therefore do not have resistance/mass.
Reminder, mass is independent of gravity. That's weight.

I unfortunately hold no answers to your gravity question.

[Anonymous No.10707514]

>>10707507
A body of mass inside of this medium is differentiated from the medium because they aren't identical in composition. Are you happy now? What exactly are you asking me?

[Anonymous No.10707547]

>>10707513
>The higgs field. It's the field that interacts with all particles (some more than others), and gives resistance to motion. The more your particles interact with the higgs field, the harder you are to move, the more mass you are said to have.

Fancy description of "inertia"

>Reminder, mass is independent of gravity. That's weight.
>I unfortunately hold no answers to your gravity question.

"Hi I am Mr. ill informed"

>>10707514
>A body of mass inside of this medium is differentiated from the medium because they aren't identical in composition
>"It is different because it is different"
Can anyone here explain rather that restate the premise and describe what occurs? We could have saved about half the posts made in this thread.

>What exactly are you asking me?
To explain the difference between "mass" and "the medium". For the second time now.

[Anonymous No.10707568]

>>10707301
To be fair, the universe doesn't plug meters into a calculator either, but here we are calling length a dimension, even tho we made up those units to.

But length width and height are the spatial dimensions. Time is the 4th dimension because this whole objects thing only matters to us when it's all in motion, so it's nice to know when so we can determine where.

Also to be fair, the universe just always existing is also irrational. It's observed the galaxies are moving from a central starting point.
And so what if it never ends? Why can't we have time? If the universe were infinitely huge we'd still measure length in meters.

You know what's made up tho? Your image of the world around you. There is no image. The universe is not a picture or a movie. Your eyeballs and brain just make sense of what they can, but there's no reason the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum are visible to us. It's all vibrations and we're getting like 2% of the picture anyway.
Please try telling us more about how "made up" things don't matter.
>You don't matter.

[Anonymous No.10707578]

>>10697273
Gravity is on the same level as magnetism, it’s just another fundamental force. Like the strong and weak forces. It’s unique that gravity is weak, because all those forces are much more powerful at short range.
Like how magnets bring each other together, mass just has a quality that likes to attract other mass towards it.

[Anonymous No.10707585]

>>10707547
>Fancy description of inertia
Umm, yeah.. that was the question afterall

>Ill informed
Nigga please, Stephen Hawking was uninformed. We all are. There hasn't been any consensus on this

[Anonymous No.10707689]

>>10703705
Uncharted levels of brainletism

[Anonymous No.10707720]

>>10707434

No nigger what I was saying was that time isn't a "frequency" of anything. That anon has it right lmao time is a direction we can go, but we are stuck going forward in it. It's a fourth dimension, an extra one from the three we're used to, but it is a dimension nonetheless. If time didn't exist, gravity wouldn't exist, but they clearly do

[Anonymous No.10707738]

>>10707568

>But length width and height are quantified spatial dimensions.

>Time is the 4th dimension because this whole objects thing only matters to us when it's all in motion, so it's nice to know when so we can determine where.

There is no "where". The universe is one thing in principle.

>Also to be fair, the universe just always existing is also irrational
"from what"

>And so what if it never ends? Why can't we have time?
It defeats the premise of it. Time has no meaning when it's purely a change in quality.

>You know what's made up tho? Your image of the world around you. There is no image. The universe is not a picture or a movie.
It works of the principles of a hologram so that's not far off.

>Your eyeballs and brain just make sense of what they can, but there's no reason the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum are visible to us. It's all vibrations and we're getting like 2% of the picture anyway.
Please try telling us more about how "made up" things don't matter.

I never said it didn't matter, it's just parts of the whole. The whole is the whole picture, the actual thing that is real.

>You don't matter.
To who and why? It is "indeterminable" and "not specific". That doesn't mean "it doesn't matter".

>>10707585
>Umm, yeah.. that was the question afterall
So you just described the same thing using a different word. For what purpose?

>We all are. There hasn't been any consensus on this
So I guess it's still up for debate then.

>>10707720

>That anon has it right lmao time is a direction we can go, but we are stuck going forward in it

So it's
a. A direction
b. something you can be "in"
c. a dimension

>an extra one from the three we're used to
And what three would those be? You think that the universe works in Cartesian coordinates or something? Absurd.

>If time didn't exist, gravity wouldn't exist
I couldn't agree more. Neither exist as a cause or phenomena. Gravity is simply an effect of electromagnetism

[Anonymous No.10707833]

I know most of you are just parroting the conventional ideas
>mass attracts mass, that's just how it is
but what actual experimental evidence exists to prove this? I know of the Cavendish experiment, but is that even legit? How can you measure any noticeable attraction between two masses on a planet that is extremely more massive than either of the test subjects? Wouldn't the much more massive planet negate any of the attraction between two such objects, especially so close to the center mass/gravity field? Further more, if when we travel far away from Earths gravitational field/affect, then how come the mass we take with us isn't attracted to each other? Like, if a couple of dudes float off in some tin can, at a certain point wouldn't they be stuck to each other like a couple of fags?

[Anonymous No.10707878]

>>10707738

>doubting the Cartesian coordinate model
You have literally no reason to not believe those don't work in our universe we have up and down, left and right, forward and back. Just extrapolate one more for time, just we can't perceive it going any way but forward. This model works. Why does it not satisfy you?

>>10707833
They first tried to measure gravity by finding suitable mountains and seeing how much a pendulum held at the top deflected towards them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment#Repeat_experiments

[Anonymous No.10707883]

>>10707738
Why would time have no meaning if its just a change in quality? What law are you imagining where entropy growing and the universe reaching thermal equilibrium are just purely notional concepts?

[Anonymous No.10707931]

>>10707547
The medium has mass and is made out of matter. Mass is a property of matter and all mediums are made out of matter. The matter which composes the medium is not accurately described by the standard model or Feynman's sea of virtual particles, and is not ruled out by the null result of the Michelson- Morley experiment as many would wrongfully believe.
I understand that you are frustrated.

[Anonymous No.10707934]

Usually, we can not explain why the universe is like this, and not different.
Usually, we make experiments, we observe, we link concepts together... Then we make an equation that would predict any experiments...
So, from math to physics, we explain experiments, but we don't know what the world is made of ...

[Anonymous No.10708028]

Gravity exists because the universe is flat.

[Anonymous No.10708065]

>>10708028
Do birds have gravity too ?

[Anonymous No.10708067]

>>10708065
(They always try to get down, unless they would fly to space) ??

[Anonymous No.10708384]

I am so fucking sick of this human race

[Anonymous No.10708421]

>>10697496
Physics just describes the rules of how the magic works.

[Anonymous No.10708491]

>>10707878

>doubting the Cartesian coordinate model

No moron. I don't "doubt" the existence of a concept. I'm saying that concept doesn't actually explain what takes place in reality. It QUANTIFIES it to use in the LANGUAGE called "math".

>You have literally no reason to not believe those don't work in our universe we have up and down, left and right, forward and back.

You mean other than the fact that we made all those CONCEPTS up? Where is "up" in the universe? "Down"? Ridiculous. It "works" , but under the assumption that there's an actual quantity there.
What is the Cartesian origin/locus of a "field"?

>>10707931
>The medium has mass and is made out of matter.Mass is a property of matter and all mediums are made out of matter.
So there is no difference? Is everything just "matter"? Isn't matter formed?

>The matter which composes the medium is not accurately described by the standard model or Feynman's sea of virtual particles, and is not ruled out by the null result of the Michelson- Morley experiment as many would wrongfully believe.
Well at least you have negated what the matter is not (accurately described) , which is more than what anyone else has done in this thread. (you)'s for you.

>I understand that you are frustrated.
Not at all, you actually made a good post and didn't pretend to know something. You at least know what it is not.

>>10707883

>Why would time have no meaning if its just a change in quality?

What qualities does time posses? It owuld be like saying a "meter" has qualities. A meter of "what", the "what" has the qualities not the measurement of it. If the universe is a change in quality and time has no qualities because it has no properties then I fail to see how time is a factor in the equation to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10708602]

>>10707738
>But length width and height are quantified spatial dimensions
Agreed
>>Time is the 4th dimension because this whole objects thing only matters to us when it's all in motion, so it's nice to know when so we can determine where.
>There is no "where". The universe is one thing in principle.
Nigga don't get all Andy Rooney on us. You know damn well I'm sitting in a different location than you and that location changes every second as we haul ass around the sun.

>>Also to be fair, the universe just always existing is also irrational
>"from what"
That's the big question isn't it. To say it all always existed, well again, how? At least big bang theorists have observations backing their claims, hence the theory.

>>And so what if it never ends? Why can't we have time?
>It defeats the premise of it. Time has no meaning when it's purely a change in quality.
And the premise is? Cause as far as we're concerned it's to measure how far along things are in motion. We can interject this measurement at the beginning middle or end, or 2 points in the middle with no regard to beginning or end. It works just fine.
The fuck do u mean by change in quality? Length isnt purely quantitative either considering a meter in July is different than a meter in January.

>>You know what's made up tho? Your image of the world around you. There is no image. The universe is not a picture or a movie.
>It works of the principles of a hologram so that's not far off.
It's way off. The hologram doesn't exist to give you a picture. It isn't an image. Your picture and perception is entirely made up.

>>Please try telling us more about how "made up" things don't matter.
>I never said it didn't matter, it's just parts of the whole. The whole is the whole picture, the actual thing that is real.
Ah fuck me, you're right, you said "IRRELEVANT"

>>You don't matter.
>To who and why? It is "indeterminable" and "not specific". That doesn't mean "it doesn't matter".
Godamn take a joke Andy Rooney

[Anonymous No.10708606]

>>10707738

>>Umm, yeah.. that was the question afterall
>So you just described the same thing using a different word. For what purpose?
No I described inertia using about 50 words, answering exactly where it came from, which was the question. You have it backwards apparently. Mass isn't responsible for inertia. Mass literally is just inertia, or your resistance to movement. Your mass is how much you interact with the Higgs field. Light does not interact and therefore has no mass.

>>We all are. There hasn't been any consensus on this
>So I guess it's still up for debate then.
Dumb thread is dumb, thanks for contributing

[Anonymous No.10708621]

>>10697316
Pretty much this. Gravity itself, we have no idea what it is.

[Anonymous No.10708704]

>>10708602
You know damn well I'm sitting in a different location than you and that location changes every second as we haul ass around the sun.
>Around the sun
>the only thing that is currently keeping the earth and your ass in that "place" through
Take the sun away and the distance become smeaningless. We would disappear instantaneously from the lack of motion that allows us to express "magnitude" (distance, dimensional properties) in the first place.

>That's the big question isn't it.
>Yeah, and "from nothing comes nothing" is quite logical. To say it all always existed, well again, how?
Because that's what it does. "It is". Logically so. Are you saying it isn't? How are you here then?

>At least big bang theorists have observations backing their claims, hence the theory.
You can backup unicorns being real too, if you can't properly explain a unicorn or provide empirical evidence of one then you're wasting your time roleplaying the "blind men and an elephant" parable.

>And the premise is? Cause as far as we're concerned it's to measure how far along things are in motion.
Which isn't a property or a phenomena. Why is that so hard to understand?

>We can interject this measurement at the beginning middle or end, or 2 points in the middle with no regard to beginning or end. It works just fine.

...For quantification, which is an assumption that there is quantity in the universe. An assumption of a beginning middle or end, "two points in the middle", both of which have no meaning when it comes to the source of magnitude and the loss of inertia.

>loss of the the ability to remain unchanged
Is not, and will never be a "quantity".

>The hologram doesn't exist to give you a picture. It isn't an image.

It is specifically an image made form light you twit. A photograph of an interference pattern. In a hologram, the parts are all self similar. In the universe all the parts are self similar. That is why when you break a magnet, another forms.

1/2

[Anonymous No.10708750]

>>10708602
>No I described inertia using about 50 words,
And descriptions are not explanations.
>answering exactly where it came from
Which can't be done because it's inherent. It doesn't come or go. its always present and it's quality changes.

It doesn't "come from" anywhere if it's always present.

>Mass isn't responsible for inertia. Mass literally is just inertia, or your resistance to movement.
Mass is dependent on inertia though. Inertia is a property of matter which makes it resist change(so the absence of change) and mass is the quantity of matter. You're saying the quantity of something is the same as the absence of properties. An absence cannot be reified

>Dumb thread is dumb, thanks for contributing
"okay" is all I can conjure up

2/2

[Anonymous No.10708779]

>>10699043
No one knows.

[Anonymous No.10708825]

>>10707485
Momentum is conserved throughout the entire system. The total momentum of the exhaust plus the rocket equals 0. Thus, the momentum of one is the negative of the other.

[Anonymous No.10708916]

>>10708491
>So there is no difference? Is everything just "matter"? Isn't matter formed?

My intuition tells me that nothing can have no properties, and that spacetime must therefore be something. From experiment we know that spacetime has permeability and permittivity, and it is able to act as a medium for waves that do carry momentum and can communicate newtons of force across distance. The notion that spacetime can posses these properties and not be composed of matter is absurd to me, and I can not accept it as true.
Working from the assumption that probability is not a physical property of anything that exists, itself does not exist except as a concept or methodology for calculating the likeliness of possible outcomes.
I therefore refute the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as being false, and it follows that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is invalid as well, as it relies on the validity of the HUP.
Subsequently research into this dilemma lead me to the discovery of the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics by Randell L. Mills, which I am still investigating.
My understanding as of now is that matter is fundamental, and not formed in that it is composed of divisible parts which are not matter. I have concluded this on the basis that the electron has absolute mass and angular momentum, as solved for by Mills. I do not know of any reason to suspect that the electron is divisible, therefore I have every reason to believe that mass is fundamental, and not formed. Thank you for the (you).

[Anonymous No.10708974]

>>10708916
>My intuition tells me that nothing can have no properties, and that spacetime must therefore be something.
But that's illogical because space and time have no properties!

>From experiment we know that spacetime has permeability and permittivity,
Did you mean "matter"? AKA "filled space"?

>and it is able to act as a medium for waves that do carry momentum and can communicate newtons of force across distance.
If I splash my hand in a pond I am disturbing what is already present. I'm "creating waves" in the medium, but a "wave" isn't a thing exactly. It's an action of the medium. That is not "traveling", "force" and certainly has nothing to do with "distance".

>The notion that spacetime can posses these properties and not be composed of matter is absurd to me, and I can not accept it as true.
Because that is an assumption. The assumption that spacetime exists and has properties. It is most certainly absurd.

>Working from the assumption that probability is not a physical property of anything that exists\
It's not an assumption. Probability is also a measurement with no properties.

>My understanding as of now is that matter is fundamental, and not formed in that it is composed of divisible parts which are not matter.
Well it doesn't explain itself. It doesn't form itself.

> I have concluded this on the basis that the electron has absolute mass and angular momentum, as solved for by Mills. I do not know of any reason to suspect that the electron is divisible, therefore I have every reason to believe that mass is fundamental, and not formed. Thank you for the (you).
What happens when you measure the "electron" when it is standing still on its own as its own separate thing? (protip it ceases existing). You're reifying an action (a perturbation) as something. No. It is what SOMETHING ELSE does. Kind of like how people think "waves" exist yet can't define what the "waves" are composed of (because it's an action).

[Anonymous No.10709101]

>>10708974
Space and time don't have properties, but what is referred to as spacetime in modern physics is neither space nor time. It's the really retarded as fuck name that physicists gave to the medium that carries electromagnetic and gravitational waves. As for the rest, I really don't know how to respond. I wish I had all the answers but alas, I am an autistic neet.

[Anonymous No.10709172]

>>10697273
works the same as a big beach ball does in water, except the pressure of the water is equal/slower so the ball doesnt just float upwards,

imagine in infinite ocean and a beachball in it, thats how planets work in space, same shit different name

[Anonymous No.10709204]

>>10709172
You can't be real

[Anonymous No.10709274]

>>10708704
>>10708750
I told you not to get all Andy Rooney on us. At this point I'm not sure if you're being facetious or you're retarded or just 14yo. Either way I'm done here. Feel free to jerk off later to winning this one.

[Anonymous No.10709299]

>>10697305
isn‘t gravity supposed to result from closed strings tho?

[Anonymous No.10709321]

>>10697496
if we keep trying to get more details on how stuff works, maybe it all makes sense in the end. If we get somewhere with it, i‘m glad for the future generations and if not, well we tried. At least we got to see cool quantum stuff

[Anonymous No.10709327]

>>10698575
can be purely explained via van-der-waals force

[Anonymous No.10709333]

>>10698934
Interactions with the higgs field

[Anonymous No.10709347]

>>10699105
how would that work? This seems equivalent to saying energy density causes gravity, which is already described by GR

[Anonymous No.10709380]

>>10709101
>Space and time don't have properties, but what is referred to as spacetime in modern physics is neither space nor time. It's the really retarded as fuck name that physicists gave to the medium that carries electromagnetic and gravitational waves. As for the rest, I really don't know how to respond. I wish I had all the answers but alas, I am an autistic neet.

Well that's great, now on your way bub.

>>10709274
"You're wrong and I don't know why"

Maybe because you believe in a religion that tells you what to think.

[Anonymous No.10709474]

>>10709347
>This seems equivalent to saying energy density causes gravity, which is already described by GR

Exactly... except now we can keep the math as a vector out, straight line, multi-body math's compatible. GR and it's bendable spacetime is a good enough model for single body problems but it shits the bed when we do anything with multiple gravity centers bending nothing in multiple directions at once.

[Anonymous No.10709803]

>>10697273
Nobody can explain this.

[Anonymous No.10710156]

big thing make big energy.

anyone saying anything deeper than that is a fucking little stick leg nigger loving faggot zoomer moron

[Anonohnee No.10710491]

Hasn't it got to do with large masses bending the space around it

[Anonymous No.10710720]

I love how those two psychotic /a/ faggots always show up in this thread and take it seriously. Fucking gold

[Anonymous No.10710742]

>>10709333
higgs explains only about 1% of your mass
https://youtu.be/JqNg819PiZY?t=40m

[Anonymous No.10711082]

good question OP.

No, its not entirely magnets. It is a low frequency oscillating sine wave with some degree of fragmentation that is responsible. You might liken it's interpretation to that of being sad, or maybe retarded, most likely unable to string coherent words together. Alternatively, this phenomenon can be measured using spectroscopy equipment and mathematics.

[Anonymous No.10711148]

>>10709803
I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it desu.

>>10707456

[Anonymous No.10711164]

>>10710720
Yeah why would anyone talk about the mechanics of the universe seriously, especially on a science board.

[Anonymous No.10711196]

>>10710720
It's a great way for the half-serious layman to learn physics imo. Nobody cares if these threads go to shit

[Anonymous No.10711327]

>>10710742
interesting. at exactly 42:22 "mass doesn't have to come from the higgs phenomena..."

>as an example, if we consider the proton just as an empty "box" (without the internal particles that gives him 99% of his mass) the proton will be affected only 1% by the higgs boson....

>the proton is basically made of massless "ingredients" (gluons and quarks) but the proton get 99% of his mass ONLY(!!!) from the kinetic energy produced from those glouns and quarks moving around inside that "box" (and he cites E=mc2) that is called proton .

danm, modern physics is ugly! I wonder where all this is gonna end (how it will finally "look")

[Anonymous No.10711791]

>>10697273
Matter makes other matter gravitate toward it without actually imbuing it with a force, which is one of the main differences between gravity and magnetism, gravity in a vacuum acts the same on all objects, as has been tested on the moon by dropping a feather and a hammer at the same time and observing the speed at which they fall.

[Anonymous No.10711837]

>>10711791
>Matter makes other matter gravitate toward it without actually imbuing it with a force, which is one of the main differences between gravity and magnetism,

I think you are confussing things, gravity and magnetism "behaves" in a similar way (in terms of their field behaviour) this is why theres always been the idea that "maybe gravity is part of magnetism..."

[Anonymous No.10711850]

>>10711837
I am aware, I am just listing a major difference between them.

[Anonymous No.10711881]

>>10711791
LIGO has observed gravitational waves multiple times, which means you are completely full of shit.

[Anonymous No.10711904]

>>10711881
Can you explain to me what part of what I said, was full of shit?

[Anonymous No.10711914]

>>10711904
>Matter makes other matter gravitate toward it without actually imbuing it with a force

[Anonymous No.10711923]

>>10711914
Gravity does not act as a force on objects, and that has been demonstrated quite a few times, even recorded (refer to dropping a hammer and a feather on the moon)
Whether or not matter makes matter gravitate toward it or some other shit is up to what's found out later on in physics.

[Anonymous No.10711937]

>>10711791
>Matter makes other matter gravitate toward it without actually imbuing it with a force, which is one of the main differences between gravity and magnetism.

But a magnet is made of fucking matter. This description does not differentiate gravity from magnetism whatsoever, the only difference is that you didn't call it a "force". Are you implying magnetism is a "force? It's not, read:>>10703705. As in the case of "gravity", the masses involved also mutually impel each other.


>gravity in a vacuum acts the same on all objects, as has been tested on the moon by dropping a feather and a hammer at the same time and observing the speed at which they fall.

But the moon has an atmosphere. Both objects were being affected by the moon because they were accelerating towards it. What happens when they accelerate towards each other? Won't the hammer have more influence over the feather? Does not the moon circle the earth and the earth the sun? Technically they "circle each other" but the larger mass has more inertia, it acts more like the anchor. Why not the other way around?

>>10711881
And blind men have observed an elephant. Also, "waves" of what? Is gravity made of something?

[Anonymous No.10711959]

>>10711937
Ah, I was referring to how the hammer and feather fell implying that the kinetic energy spread throughout their mass toward the moon did not matter, however yes, they will inherently have different gravitational properties if judged by eachother.
And yes, a magnet is made of matter, I was never denying that. I was just saying that while magnetism is a sort of force, gravity does not in fact imbue shit with energy. That is, in the sense that magnets change shit while matter changes gravity.

[Anonymous No.10711975]

>>10711937
>Also, "waves" of what? Is gravity made of something?

All waves are the same thing happening in different mediums, don't give me that shit. It's a wave in "spacetime," whatever the fuck that is, as if that would somehow effect my argument in any way.

[Anonymous No.10712089]

>>10711959
I was just saying that while magnetism is a sort of force, gravity does not in fact imbue shit with energy. That is, in the sense that magnets change shit while matter changes gravity.

If magnets/magnetism change matter and matter changes "gravity"(still no explanation), then magnetism is the fucking cause of gravity. A change in quality isn't a force by the way. The only way to cause a change in a quality is obviously to have an absence of that quality which you're referring to. So you have:
Magnetism: the qualities, dimensionality, manifest
Inertia/electrostatics/(the absence of magnetism which is obviously not magnetism): the absence of qualities/manifestation (which is not something specific or even determinable).
"gravity": An interplay of the two. Which is why the planet doesn't fly apart nor implode upon itself. A "well" of the absence of qualities, which is why it affects everything and eventually makes it succumb to it (you die, you live, things grow and shrink, gas condenses/sublimates). A disparity of a medium.

>>10711975
>All waves are the same thing happening in different mediums
>It's a wave in "spacetime," whatever the fuck that is, as if that would somehow effect my argument in any way.

It does affect your "argument" because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're using a buzzword because "space" and "time" has no actual basis in reality! If a wave happens in a medium (you said so yourself) then It's "filled space", an incommensurable medium that has absolutely nothing to do with time, "space", "spacetime", or any other "quantified" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10712228]

>>10712089
does ether has a place in all this?

[Anonymous No.10712259]

>>10712089
No you don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter what the medium is, a wave is a transference of momentum between the composite parts of a medium, and the transference of momentum necessitates force by definition.


>I was just saying that while magnetism is a sort of force, gravity does not in fact imbue shit with energy. That is, in the sense that magnets change shit while matter changes gravity.

If magnets/magnetism change matter and matter changes "gravity"(still no explanation), then magnetism is the fucking cause of gravity. A change in quality isn't a force by the way. The only way to cause a change in a quality is obviously to have an absence of that quality which you're referring to. So you have:
Magnetism: the qualities, dimensionality, manifest
Inertia/electrostatics/(the absence of magnetism which is obviously not magnetism): the absence of qualities/manifestation (which is not something specific or even determinable).
"gravity": An interplay of the two. Which is why the planet doesn't fly apart nor implode upon itself. A "well" of the absence of qualities, which is why it affects everything and eventually makes it succumb to it (you die, you live, things grow and shrink, gas condenses/sublimates). A disparity of a medium.

How were you physically able to make your fingers type this?

[Anonymous No.10712260]

Based EU troll doing some fucking work ITT
Trying to figure out "why" the universe behaves as it does is as pointless as trying to figure out if God exists or not. The best we can do is describe the universe's behavior as accurately as possible and use what we learn to build badass technology.
The engineer gets to enjoy the fruits of the physicist's labor without any of the unanswerable questions or philosophical angst.

[Anonymous No.10712267]

>>10712089

[Anonymous No.10712319]

>>10712228
>ether
Whatever. It doesn't matter what it's called because it literally is indeterminable. You can call it "zero point", "quantum foam", "quantum glue", "the medium", "the principle", "holos", all words made up for describing something indeterminable by nature. What "it" isn't is "omnipotent" because it is "doing something" and it isn't "something specific". If it were "omnipotent" then nothing would cause it to do anything, it would be all knowing and everything would just fall in place. It would be something specific and determinable. It would cause itself. But that isn't logical because things don't define themselves.

>>10712259
>It doesn't matter what the medium is, a wave is a transference of momentum between the composite parts of a medium, and the transference of momentum necessitates force by definition.

Aka "what something does"-not a thing. It does not necessitate a force because all the parts are self similar. It's a mutual impelling.
>No everything is not made of "protons" and "neutrons" and "electrons"
It even makes sense under the assumption of stupid bumping particles. Even the law of thermodynamics.
>neither created
>nor destroyed
SO WHERE DOES THE "FORCE" COME FROM? NOWHERE? IT EXPLAINS ITSELF?
>well uh...no it comes from another thing that gives it that force
Ad continuum and then what? Where does it come from? I want a fucking explanation you twit.

>How were you physically able to make your fingers type this?
Well go on and retort? "Inertia" "Magnetism" and "electrostatics exist. Explain it some other way. You can't even tell me where gravity comes from.

>>10712260
>Trying to figure out "why" the universe behaves as it does is as pointless as trying to figure out if God exists or not

Dumbest loaded statement. 6/10 though.

[Anonymous No.10712361]

>>10697273
Mass is the natural counterpart of energy
Energy behaves like a wave in constant expansion
Mass otherwise behaves in constant attraction
Is the natural balance

[Anonymous No.10712380]

>>10712319
I'm not trying to explain the origin of all kinetic energy in the universe, I'm just trying to explain the phenomenon of gravitation to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter what initially accelerated the body of mass, the fact remains that an accelerated body of mass generates gravitational waves. It doesn't matter what medium carries a wave, the fact remains that waves transfer momentum and therefore communicate force. You have a very limited imagination if you believe that the medium is truly indeterminable. I have faith in human ingenuity, if anything. I don't believe that nature has hidden secrets that are literally impossible to discover. I think that line of reasoning is useless and boring.

>SO WHERE DOES THE "FORCE" COME FROM? NOWHERE? IT EXPLAINS ITSELF?

In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. A force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity, i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described intuitively as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.

[Anonymous No.10712384]

>>10707878
>They first tried to measure gravity by finding suitable mountains and seeing how much a pendulum held at the top deflected towards them
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiehallion_experiment#Repeat_experiments

These still don't answer my questions. First, the original experiments are depending on a large mass (mountain) to deflect a pendulum, and they have to measure that deflection to a very small scale, so much that repeated experiments result in different values recorded (can even reproduce results). Then, the modern approach is to place a pendulum at altitude and one at the bottom, then measure the variation in their periods. Again, this takes incredibly accurate instrumentation to measure the small scale changes, and once again, produces varying results. And regardless, none of this proves that the effects being observed are due to mass attracting mass or whatever mass-space theory we want to throw at it.

[Anonymous No.10712433]

>>10711881
They are detecting something that affects electromagnetic radiation, but saying that is equivalent to detecting gravitational waves is asinine. Just because we think a star going supernova would produce some theoretical gravity wave, doesn't mean they do, and regardless, it says nothing of the nature of gravity. A wave that affects electromagnetic waves...seems like it would be itself, magnetic in nature, no?

[Anonymous No.10712452]

>>10712380
>You have a very limited imagination if you believe that the medium is truly indeterminable.
>Have unlimited imagination by believing everything is determined

Good lord man.

>I don't believe that nature has hidden secrets that are literally impossible to discover. I think that line of reasoning is useless and boring.
Where the fuck do you think all the new discoveries are coming from? It is the indeterminable nature of it that makes it ANYTHING possible to discover.

>In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object. A force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity, i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described intuitively as a push or a pull. A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.
So it's basically a meaningless term unless you're speaking in terms of quantification (math). Everything is always in motion mutually by each others motion. Again that is not a "Force". Nothing is done against the will of the other object, the other object was always in motion to begin with. You've mediated what was present using itself and what it isn't. It is mutual, nothing is "forced". Unless you want to tell me where the "force" comes from then I refuse to believe that it is a cause or is caused by anything.

[Anonymous No.10712472]

>>10712452
>It is the indeterminable nature of it that makes it ANYTHING possible to discover.
You're fucking with me. Are you confusing indeterminable with undiscovered?

[Anonymous No.10712474]

>>10712452
>Have unlimited imagination by believing everything is determined
Are you seriously conflating imagination with free will?

[Anonymous No.10712488]

>>10712452
>So it's basically a meaningless term
>>10712089
You are now shin deep, foot in mouth.

[Anonymous No.10712503]

>>10712472
>Are you confusing indeterminable with undiscovered?
If you have yet to determine something it is undiscovered is it not?

>Are you seriously conflating imagination with free will?
>If I imagine up something that doesn't currently exist and make a blueprint of it, it will never come to fruition

Said no inventor ever. Also I never said free will existed, it certainly isn't free anyway.

>>10712488
"Force" is a meaningless term yes since motion is a mutual impelling. You might say that "impel" and "force" mean the same thing in some circumstances which is why I added "mutual" as to not confuse either thing being compelled to move as "forced to move". If you rationally agree with someone and meet in the middle ground in an argument, neither of you have been "forced" to come to an agreement and the same is the case for matter.

[Anonymous No.10712521]

>>10712503

[Anonymous No.10712534]

please help clarify these terms

gravitational & tidal

second confusing pair

spacetime & aether

please explain in detail the difference between the paired terms.

thank you

[Anonymous No.10712585]

>>10712534
>gravitational & tidal
Blanket terms, Gravity refers to a general "force" of "attraction" of mass, Tidal refers to a gradient difference from another gravioli source.

>spacetime & aether

"Spacetime" is a mathematical model that describes an arbitrary assumption of how the universe works using 3 "dimensions" of measurement and "time" (another measurement).

"aether" is a substance that fills space (to the degree that there is not really "space"). Some theorize it as being luminiferous, some not.

[Anonymous No.10712615]

>>10699350
Electromagnetism is mediated by photons
They're the force carrier

[Anonymous No.10713120]

>>10698604
>So what physical property of matter gives matter "mass"?
Density

[Anonymous No.10713689]

>>10712452
>Nothing is done against the will of the other object
>the will

See: >>10705962

[Anonymous No.10714134]

>>10697273
You've got to imagine spacetime as a sort of 4 dimensional fabric. It is visualized pretty well in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
Like if you were to put two heavy objects on a blanket, they would slide towards each other, except in the 4th dimension mass would slide towards each other in from every angle.

[Anonymous No.10714143]

>>10697273
Miracles. Easy.

[Anonymous No.10714311]

>>10713689
"But during their comprehension of these they do not disturb them by introducing another motion, but lead on the begging of the slower lation in conformity to that of the swifter.
>(aka. from nothing comes nothing, energy is neither created nor destroyed only transferred equally )
And these, adapting to themselves a similitude of the ceasing motion, mingle together one passion from the union of sharp and flat. From whence they afford pleasure to the unwise, but joy to the wise, through the imitation of divine harmony subsisting in mortal motions
>(The paradigm of disparity arsing from not being real or absolute, an imitation. Self-similarity arising from imitating the same harmony, but the disparity keeps union at bay).
And, indeed, with respect to all effluxions of water, the falling of thunder and the wonderful circumstances observed in the attraction of amber, and of the herculean stone (loadstones/magnets); in all these, nothing in reality of attraction takes place: but, as a vacuum cannot anywhere be found, and these particulates mutually impel each other,
(literally "magnets don't fucking attract and the concept of "space" between what is filled is a fallacy)
-hence, from the individuals when separated and mingled together tending to their proper seats, and from these passions being interwoven with each other, such admirable effects present themselves to the view of the accurate investigator"
(everything mutually impels each other, nothing is "particularized")

- Plato, Timeaus 80b.

[Anonymous No.10714519]

>>10712089
Why are you just repeating the thing >>10711959 contained?

[Anonymous No.10714614]

>>10709204
its true you brainlet,

mass bends spacetime just like a beachball makes water fall towards it when submerged

[Anonymous No.10714650]

>>10714614
Wow I never thought of it that way, just like a beachball makes water fall towards it, holy shit it all makes sense now!