/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11123586]

What exactly is gravity? And why can't we understand it?

[Anonymous No.11123613]

>>11123586
That image proves why spacetime is retarded. The only way it could work like that is if it was a surface rather than a medium.

[Anonymous No.11123626]

Don’t think of mass as warping spacetime, think of mass as being a warp in spacetime

[Anonymous No.11123666]

>>11123613
You’re genuinely too braindead to debate. A 3D representation doesnt defeat a 4 dimensional manifold.

[Anonymous No.11123671]

>>11123666
Dimensions don't exist you schizo.

[Anonymous No.11123694]

>>11123671
>t. doesnt know what a dimension is

[Anonymous No.11123697]

>>11123671
Actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.11123700]

>>11123694
>>11123697
They're logically impossible you infuriating schizos. Do you know what an infinite regress is?

[Anonymous No.11123713]

>>11123586
Is this the brainlet containment thread now?

[Anonymous No.11123720]

>>11123700
(x,y,z,t). Was that so fucking hard?

[Anonymous No.11123722]

>>11123700

[Anonymous No.11123726]

>>11123720
Nice letters schizo.

[Anonymous No.11123730]

>>11123722
Nice drawing schizo.

[Anonymous No.11123734]

>>11123586
Sick and tired of hearing about how we "don't understand gravity." We know exactly how it functions, and exactly how to calculate gravity in any given system.

Yes, I am aware we don't know what causes gravity. Are we aware what causes the "strong and weak nuclear forces" which are very poorly modeled, and poorly understood? Do we /really/ know for sure why it is that a whole bunch of protons like sticking around together? Why is that?

Or is it just because scientists like to pretend that it's easy to understand things sticking together like peanut butter on bread, but they're too autistic to admit that they comprehend objects innately pulling themselves towards each other?

[Anonymous No.11123738]

>>11123671
Doesn't look like anything to me

[Anonymous No.11123740]

>>11123671
>dimension
>noun
>a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height
>somehow doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.11123743]

>>11123730
A dimension is a defined word, it is used to explain directions and space.

Your computer screen has two dimensions otherwise you can't program with it. x and y are necessary to program in two dimensions any programmer would know this.

[Anonymous No.11123754]

>>11123671
I haven't used this pic in years

[Anonymous No.11123782]

>>11123738
What doesn't?
>>11123740
>>11123743
>>11123754
>doesn't know that that the idea of multiple dimensions is an infinite regress

[Anonymous No.11123790]

>>11123671

Without getting into existence, I am going to agree with this guy: dimensionality does not exist.

What you think of as a dimension is just a factorization of your spatial experience along the lines of orthogonal motion. Since motion of what you are calling a mass through what you are calling space is affected only by what you call forces acting along three orthogonal directions, you can separate those directions into separate force stories.
You can then expand that factorization to something you call time. But you can never have a physical story that does not include everything. There are no 2 or 1 or 4 dimensional objects. Physical objects are just physical objects. Without the orthogonality of motion you would never have made up dimensions.

What Hume should have made clear was not just that the whole that you are cutting up creates the parts that you then say lead to the whole and allow you to deduce missing parts and induce wholes from the parts from other stories that turn out the same, but also that you can't just switch stories just because they use the same parts, because there are different narrators that can and cannot see those parts.

Your dimensionality requires a narrator that can see in 2 and 1 dimension, but that narrator has no existence outside of the problem you use that story to solve, as evidenced by Hamiltonian methods that solve these problems without dimensionality at all. Better rip that bandaid off right now before it creates problems down the road.

[Anonymous No.11123837]

Gravity is a compression wave in the aether. It's as simple as that. Mass isn't pulled towards other masses by attraction. Mass is pushed by collision with the aether, and gravitation is a result of simple interference between compression waves in the aether. Gravity is essentially acoustic in nature. It's all about resonance.

[Anonymous No.11123857]

>>11123790
Without getting into existence, I am going to agree with this guy: dimensionality does not exist.

What you think of as a dimension is just a factorization of your spatial experience along the lines of orthogonal motion. Since motion of what you are calling a mass through what you are calling space is affected only by what you call forces acting along three orthogonal directions, you can separate those directions into separate force stories.
You can then expand that factorization to something you call time. But you can never have a physical story that does not include everything. There are no 2 or 1 or 4 dimensional objects. Physical objects are just physical objects. Without the orthogonality of motion you would never have made up dimensions.

What Hume should have made clear was not just that the whole that you are cutting up creates the parts that you then say lead to the whole and allow you to deduce missing parts and induce wholes from the parts from other stories that turn out the same, but also that you can't just switch stories just because they use the same parts, because there are different narrators that can and cannot see those parts.

Your dimensionality requires a narrator that can see in 2 and 1 dimension, but that narrator has no existence outside of the problem you use that story to solve, as evidenced by Hamiltonian methods that solve these problems without dimensionality at all. Better rip that bandaid off right now before it creates problems down the road.

Gotcha senpai.
why this post got deleted?

[Anonymous No.11123861]

>>11123671
bait

[Anonymous No.11124166]

>>11123586

Literally just energy-mass points averaging toward each other, ut because that average is on a delay, they average toward their past locations, thus causing rotation rather than direct attraction. You can simulate this relatively easily.

[Anonymous No.11124174]

>>11124166

... to continue, now you might wonder why energy-mass averages, well it's simple really, its because averaging is the mathematical operation that conserves quantum energy-density information across space - conservation of energy essentially.

Now, why does the Universe act this way? Conservation, locality, interaction?

Heck if I know, but it does, and its all easy to simulate.

[Anonymous No.11124178]

Gravity is geometry of space-time.

[Anonymous No.11124188]

>>11124166
>>11124174
>>11124178
"Gravity is geometry of space-time"

Correct, but that is only one way to look at it. The geometry of spacetime is simply what happens why inverting and normalizing the averages of energy-mass density. Seriously. You can simulate it.

[Anonymous No.11124197]

>>11123782
No one claims that. I bet theres no more than 12

[Anonymous No.11124205]

>>11123782
Listen. When your theory, in this case "Infinite regress" or whatever the fuck that means, doesn't match your data, which is, in this case, an elementary observation so simple even children understand it, that being that directions are a thing, and that there can be multiple of them, you toss the theory away.

[Anonymous No.11124296]

>>11123586
>>11123613
Do langragian points even work with the warped surface analogy. A ball would roll off these points I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.11125283]

>>11123671
Your brain got stuck in the other dimensions

[Anonymous No.11125450]

>>11123586
Friendly reminder that spacetime is just a really abstruse mathematical construct. The moment a new theory comes in spacetime wouldn't even be a thing anymore.

Friendly reminder that believing Einstein theory is all there is makes you a religious person, not a scientist.

Friendly reminder that not knowing about Karl Popper makes you a retarded scientist.

[Anonymous No.11125454]

Gravity doesn't exist.
It is merely electrostatic attraction between two objects combined with density.

[Anonymous No.11125916]

>>11124296
>A ball would roll off these points I don't get it.
That just means they're an unstable equilibrium point, like a pendulum balanced perfectly with the particle above the pivot is as much an equilibrium point as when the particle is below the pivot, the difference is the stability

[Anonymous No.11126111]

>>11125454
{citation needed -- from credible, peer-reviewed sources}

[Anonymous No.11126257]

>>11126111
>{citation needed -- from Jewish, bought and paid for sources}

[Anonymous No.11126314]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf

(2007) The Physical World as a Virtual Reality:

>The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it. In general, a virtual world’s maximum event rate is fixed by the allocated processing capacity. In our world, the fixed maximum that comes to mind is the speed of light. That there is an absolute maximum speed could reflect a maximum information processing rate

>On a distributed network, nodes with a high local workload will slow
down, e.g. if a local server has many demands a video download may play slower than usual. Likewise a high matter concentration may constitute a high processing demand, so a massive body could slow down the information processing of space-time, causing space to “curve” and time to slow. Likewise, if faster movement requires more processing, speeds near light speed could affect space/time, causing time to “dilate” and space to extend. Relativity effects could then arise from local processing overloads.

https://youtu.be/gcvq1DAM-DE

[Anonymous No.11126986]

>>11126257
erry time, foam-mouthed racist bs

[Anonymous No.11127026]

>>11123586
Gravity is an effect that happens in the physical dimensions that quantum mechanics creates.
It doesn't need to be unified and Einsteins work is perfect.
Think about all of these quantum fields that generate our physical reality. The spacetime created by them is warped by the creation of mass, it becomes a vicious cycle

[Anonymous No.11127233]

>>11123586
If we could fully understand gravity, we could understand why we can't understand it. But we don't.

[Anonymous No.11127241]

>>11127026
I like to think of it as hat happens when pinch and twist fabric. You have a created a little mound on the surface (particle of matter) but in so doing, you have warped the fabric around it.

[Anonymous No.11127246]

I like to think of it as what happens when you pinch and twist fabric. You have a created a little mound on the surface (particle of matter) but in so doing, you have warped the fabric around it.

[Anonymous No.11127339]

>>11123586
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPfZ_XzisU

[Anonymous No.11127355]

>>11127233
I don't see what's so fucking complicated, it seems pretty straight forward

[Anonymous No.11127358]

>>11127355
As much as we wish things were straightforward (so much so that some people have convinced themselves that they are) there will always be limits to our understanding of the natural world. For the simple reason that the rabbit hole of our questions about the world stretches quite literally unto infinity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

[Anonymous No.11127362]

>>11127358
>How do magnets work?
Jesus, people have been trolling scientists with that shit too damn long

[Anonymous No.11127380]

>>11123613
>What is the 4th dimension

Retard alert.

I repeat, retard alert.

[Anonymous No.11128633]

>>11123586
>why can't we understand it?
cuz we are hypnotised by notions of the center

[Anonymous No.11128649]

>>11123586
We cannot "understand" it because it's too weak for experiments on a subatomic scale, thus eluding us from combining quantum physics with relativistic effects. It's like one of those pictures that only take shape from far away but if you get closer it's just a blurry mess and no resemblance to anything. I think that we will not truly understand it for a couple hundred years. But stuff like LISA might shorten it to a couple decades.

[Anonymous No.11128871]

>>11127380
Usually those nets are actually 3d sphere on a flat surface ... Well, I don't really see that amount of gravity is dimension. Then heat could also be.

[Anonymous No.11128876]

Even this dimensions accepted by commercials feels wrong.

When it comes to analytics, pornhub have more dimensions than current perceived universe.

[Anonymous No.11128900]

What do you mean by 'don't understand gravity', we understand it as well as the other supposedly emergent properties of the universe/existence.

[Anonymous No.11128913]

>>11126314
>The maximum speed a pixel in a virtual reality game can cross a screen is limited by the processing capacity of the computer running it.
Incorrect because you can simulate a faster speed by skipping increments, even to a point where beyond processing capability speed is inferred and therefore also real.

[Anonymous No.11128914]

>>11128900
>we have chemical reaction guns
>we don’t have gravity gun
Doubt

[Anonymous No.11128952]

>>11123837
i doubt it

[Anonymous No.11128957]

>>11123722
Where's the fourth? This is lies.

[Anonymous No.11128965]

>>11123586
>its quite simple actually

[Anonymous No.11128981]

>>11128914
This is just a consequence of chemicals being materials in our world. As an emergent property of the universe the questions about gravity that matter and that we lack understanding of is the same for chemicals, you being able to use knowledge of chemicals to create weapons really is on the same level as using knowledge of gravity to create satellites. Neither is representative of understanding these things on the level that would truly mean you understand.

[Anonymous No.11128989]

>>11128981
Gravity is also a physical effect in our world. If we understood gravity the half life 2 gravity gun would be real.
We understand lift so we can fight gravity and fly without manipulating it but when we ‘understand’ gravity a proof would be the ability to manipulate it.

[Anonymous No.11129021]

>>11128989
These are just constructed differences really, just because chemicals are a material and can be manipulated because they have a material presence in our world does not mean we understand them. The questions about chemicals that are hard are the same as they are for gravity, the why and how on the emergence of these phenomenons are not accessible to us. It's just more 'interesting' to some when it comes to gravity because it doesn't have a material presence in the universe.

I don't know how relevant a sci-fi gun really is to this.

[Anonymous No.11129846]

>>11128913
You might be right about displaying pixels on a monitor but when that pixel is actually a set of voxels entangled with the vacuum and to a certain degree everything other particle then speed puts exponentially increasing amount of processing burden on the processor

[Anonymous No.11130300]

gents, got something here.

planck constant and schwarzschild radius are limiting the event in general. >fact
"between" there is everything and we - as a self-reflection of the system- are right between the orders of magnitude. >fact
fundamental forces of physics are quite well understood. >fact
still some limits left. >dark energy, dark matter, quantum tunnelling/fluctuation, the view behind the curtain of time as a strong limit

************************

>me thesis

the hole system shows various clues that the abstract concept of duality is a strong principle.
>mass inertia/gravitational force, electromagnetism, numbers theory, endless examples in biology and chemistry, quantum spins, endless perception examples, opposites in languages,...

what do we know for sure? >the existence of three spatial dimensions.
>not less because we would notice and afaik not more because some smart mathematicans found out there would be no stable planetary orbits for more.

for the germans in here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21qMAE6eqY


results in the question how to manage that time-space-matter-gravity-whatever thing.

lets have a look on the limits. >which is btw a usual procedure for approach a complex system

planck: J s

density black hole: kg/m3

[Anonymous No.11130301]

>>11130300

now think about the following: someone defines a physical quantity descriptor, an extensive state size.
so this size is related to something, like the m3 in density.
at the limits of a mathematical system there are always simplifications and independencies of solution parameters.
so it would be quite conceivable that general descriptive variables of our system here are getting independed to the number of the dimensions used for such a extensive state size.
would mean the number of the spatial dimensions in density of a black hole for example (above 10^6 kg/m3) are no more relevant. one could also write kg/m2 or kg/m, as the
magnitude of the scalar hits the limit and the scalar becomes a limit value.

now back to the limits of our system with that idea in mind.

the units are (ENERGY * TIME) and (MASS / SPACE). >compare units and enjoy chiasmus first. think about theory of relativity.

interestingly enough, we were able to determine planks effective quantum precisely (6.626070..*10^-34 Js), whereas the critical density is only blurred.

[Anonymous No.11130303]

>>11130301
core of my thesis: plankch is also an "extensive state size", which is just not observable by us, and the exponent of time is 3 in fact.
this would make the hole system even as the exponent in space is -3. >check out how well the whole thing fits together.
>nothing seems to be hurt, even the theoretical physicists with the emergence of the universe on base of quantum fluctuations get their money's worth.
ok, this would mean we have two things-objects-whatever, THE (dimensional time) and THE (dimensional room), both equal on the basis of my previous assumptions.
but they are different. space dimensions are apparently on an equal footing, time dimensions are not. or at least not in our understanding.

completion of my thesis: without knowing how the superior interaction of the two things works, one can only guess.
you me it feels correct to call the interaction a interference of two objects.

somehow that feels very right to me. >idk

[Anonymous No.11130688]

>>11128952
Why?

[Anonymous No.11130955]

>>11123837
replace aether with "photon sea"

[Anonymous No.11131005]

>>11125450
How far in advance did general relativity predict gravitational waves again? Or time dilation and light bending?

[Anonymous No.11131131]

>>11130955
No, I don't think I will.

[Anonymous No.11131138]

were too busy wasting time arguing with people why the earth isn't flat

[Anonymous No.11131146]

>>11131138
Well, why isn't it?

[Anonymous No.11131158]

Gravity is God's love

[Anonymous No.11131223]

>>11123734
We can quantise the strong and electroweak forces easily, but quantum gravity is very difficult.
And how are the strong and weak forces poorly modelled or understood? They have been experimentally verified to a great degree.

[Anonymous No.11131235]

>>11131158
This is the flying spaghetti monster argument that leads to the conclusion that midgets are the most loved by god of all people.

[Anonymous No.11131237]

>>11131223
Verifying that a force exists does nothing to explain the mechanism which produces that force.