Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 11 KB, 249x202, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11212636 No.11212636 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Holy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmQBTjRUnQ

>> No.11212640
File: 86 KB, 570x570, 1569853544683.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11212640

fuck off ken

>> No.11212643

>>11212636
>>>/x/

>> No.11212658

>>11212640
>>11212643
not an argument

>> No.11212659

>>11212636
Space and time may not be real but, it is a representation of our perception. So, it can still be warped. It is relative.

>> No.11212663

>>11212658
not arguing. just telling you to fuck off, dumbass.

>> No.11212742

No one cares about you enough to save you from my servants, Jed. Do you have the courage to save yourself?

>> No.11212768
File: 17 KB, 300x300, retardedrobot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11212768

>>11212742
>>11212643
>>11212640

>> No.11212968

>>11212636
Space does not have properties, it has attributes. Ken is absolutely 100% correcto-mundo.

>> No.11213035

>>11212968
What's the distiction

>> No.11213518
File: 73 KB, 850x400, cd373b11a398ca9153278114f7f2a42f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213518

>>11213035
thing that has something definable vs effect caused by something (the something being real the effect not). What he's basically saying is space is an effect, but has no real existence because it is purely a privation (of something else that is real). Basically you can't talk about "space" without referring to something else that actually has properties to be defined.

"Space can be curved!"..well what is being curved? The space or the matter you observe?

"there is space in between everything!"...well what is it that is in between everything? Space causes the appearance of separation? No, it's the action of "the thing" causing the appearance of separation. What is this "space" and how would it actually cause anything to happen? It can't "be" an absence, then it definitely wouldn't cause anything nor be definable "as something" to begin with!

>> No.11213526

>>11213518
>Basically you can't talk about "space" without referring to something else that actually has properties to be defined.
This is every single thing in existence. Dumb Tesla poster.

>> No.11213638

>>11212636
if you unironically listen to a guy who looks like that, sitting in that room, you might be a brainlet

>> No.11213664
File: 39 KB, 415x470, 2l0ahe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213664

>>11212636
I don't understand what hes saying

>> No.11213706
File: 924 KB, 974x848, teslabrained.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213706

>> No.11213710
File: 318 KB, 952x717, teslabrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213710

>>11213706
oops i meant to post a different pic my bad

>> No.11213713
File: 59 KB, 815x755, 1564333194324.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213713

>>11213710
since i'm dumping pics now let me put this one here too

>> No.11213803

>>11213526
>This is every single thing in existence.
Correct. So please tell me what properties "space" has that makes it comparable to something else.

>> No.11213817

>>11213803
fuck off schizo. i would tell you to read a book but unfortunately i can tell you are innumerate like Ken (you probably are him anyway) so since it would be useless your best course of action is to go back to >>>/youtube/ i.e. the brainlet containment site

>> No.11213823

>>11213803
>Crying about semantics

Relativity has predictive power. Saying space can’t have “properties” means nothing and has no significance in the face of this fact.

>> No.11213835
File: 110 KB, 953x1282, 1551443485026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213835

>>11213817
fuck off schizo.

That's not a property

>>11213823

That's not a property either

So how will you ever perform a scientific experiment on that which has no properties to test?

>> No.11213848

>>11213835
ok, acid test for innumerate man:

write down an equation, or just anything quantitative, that corresponds to your argument. can you?

>> No.11213849

>>11213835
>Muh properties

Relativity has predictive power. Make a new theory with even better predictive power. That is the one and only valid form of attack against scientific theories.

>> No.11213851

>>11212636
>249x202
FUCK OFF PHONEFAG
Sage. Report. Filter.

>> No.11213859

>>11213803
Space has distance
Space has curvature

>> No.11213865
File: 135 KB, 606x1592, HowToControlPeople.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213865

>>11213710
>>11213713
This is the yes man coombrain, the useless naysaying nobody destined for lonely obscurity

>> No.11213869

>>11213859
let me guess what ken will say...

>DISTANCE IS A MEASUREMENT NOT A REAL THING
>CURVATURE IS A JEW CONSPIRACY, READ JULIUS EVOLA AND THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION
>I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I AM THE FOREMOST SCHOLAR ON THE SUTTAS OF BUDDHISM AND THEREFORE I KNOW ELECTROMAGNETISM BETTER THAN PHYSICS

>> No.11213874

Ken's the shit.

>> No.11213883

>>11213848
You want me to write an equation for the absence of something? Are you a moron? No seriously.

>or just anything quantitative, that corresponds to your argument.

You want me to provide quantity to that which you still haven't even explained exists? That which you don't even know exhibits quantity? Tell me a property of space then we shall discuss it from there, until then I shall not illogical discuss that which is not empirical or worthy of discussion. Like seriously, what is your argument here? That it exists and just explains itself? Well you can hop on your bike to the next neighborhood with that religious bull.

>>11213849
Predictive power on that which you can't even test? Still waiting for a property of space.

>> No.11213885

>>11213883
innumerate confirmed

>> No.11213894

>>11213883
>Predictive power on that which you can't even test?

Relativity makes many testable predictions and they’ve all been verified.

> Still waiting for a property of space.

You don’t need any. Predictive power is all that matters.

>> No.11213906

>>11213859
>>11213869
"Distance" literally is not a physical property whatsoever and if you actually disagree with this then I pity you. >>11213869
>DISTANCE IS A MEASUREMENT NOT A REAL THING
Ken lives so rent free in his head that he's starting to actually listen and remember what he says. I agree. Measurements are indeed not real things that exhibit properties.

>curvature
if of "matter" or "physically real things" then sure. But still..curvature of...that which you still have not measured itself. You measure that which is physical, but how do you measure curvature in this whatever it is you think "Space" is.

>> No.11213907

>>11213894
Predict this psued

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Spacetime.html

>> No.11213911

>>11212636
this faggot spent 20 minutes raging about how the sun doesn't emit light and then in the end explained it makes light permutate through the ether instead but not emit oh no no.

and then he claims light doesn't have speed because the speed of light goes slower through glass.

what a fucking genius.

classic "no I'M special!"

>> No.11213912

>>11213907
Predict......what?

>> No.11213913

>>11213906
>"Distance" literally is not a physical property
Whatever retard.

>> No.11213917

>>11213906
Measurements are real things though. Explain how you could measure that which does not exist. This is some fucking ancient-greek tier sophism you got going on, anon.

>> No.11213918

>>11213885
of what quantity is given? What quantity has space for me to write in an equation?

>>11213894

>Relativity makes many testable predictions and they’ve all been verified.
>Polish psychic predicts the past
>You don’t need any. Predictive power is all that matters.

Oh okay so you're predicting space WILL exist then? I don't get it.
If you cannot prove to me space exists and are simply just saying it does because you were told so and believe it to be then you are literally no different than a religion. You even repeat yourself like a broken record and never answer a logical question. Well I'm sorry but I cannot talk logic to someone who is bereft of it.

>> No.11213920

>>11213906
if the length of something isnt a physical property then nothing is.

>> No.11213939

>>11213913
Talk shit, get hit. Brainlet.

>>11213917

>Measurements are real things though.
What "are" they?

>Explain how you could measure that which does not exist.
You can "measure" whatever you want, it's a language, an idea. It doesn't pertain to that which you are measuring unless you're reproducing it. Even then you still need the ACTUAL PHYSICAL THING to "interact". To measure that which doesn't exist does defeat the purpose of measuring, but neither measuring that which is or is not has a bearing to that "which is" (or is not!).
>This is some fucking ancient-greek tier sophism you got going on, anon

>> No.11213942

>>11213907
> If we were to believe Einstein we would have to believe that there is no free will at all

Skipped to conclusion. Glad I didn't read that detritus.

>> No.11213955

>>11213918
>Oh okay so you're predicting space WILL exist then?

Relativity makes predictions about the behavior of massive bodies and time dilation. These predictions are accurate.

> If you cannot prove to me space exists

It doesn’t matter if “space” “exists” or not. What matters is predictive power, and relativity has a lot of it. If the theory triggers you, get to work making a new theory with even better predictive power. No other form of criticism is valid.

>> No.11213961

>>11213920
>if the length of something isnt a physical property then nothing is.
you said "distance" not "length of something". "Has distance", want to explain that a bit more? Are you talking from a point to another point? (you'd be talking about two specific things) Or do you mean just "has distance" as in distance itself? The length OF SOMETHING would exhibit different properties yes, but you still have not explain how space is anything at all. What is "space" and what properties does "it" have?

>> No.11213965

>>11213942
>I don't know wtf is going on and how shit works but I am gonna say some dumb shit cause I am a dumb nigger

Imagine my shock

>> No.11213968

>>11213912
penis in your buthole raging faggot

>> No.11213973

>>11213968
Based and redpilled.

>> No.11213979

>>11212636
Yes we know he is destroying scientist like for the years some of his theories are pretty good some of them are bit weak but as an alternative it's pretty good i like both normal science and his alter too but he really should take it more slowly for peoples that comes at first this might be a pretty weird.

Ken is kinda that guy who don't give a shit who peoples are keep saying about him and he is not going easy at it when it comes to terminology and explanation and if you don't understand the field theorems and bit more of older physics this would be completely almost not understandable for you and he is not talking bullshit because when it comes to it actually it make some sense but as i said he should go little bit easy or at least try to make one video where he goes from start and explain what is what. BTW check his magnetism videos they are pretty sick and he have a good point on them.

>> No.11213984
File: 6 KB, 250x250, 1560299920175s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11213984

>>11213955
>These predictions are accurate.
Well that's fine and dandy but that still doesn't explain what the cause is or what they're even talking about.

"Time dialation". Well what properties does time have that make it real?


>It doesn’t matter if “space” “exists” or not.
Then stop talking about it so much and basing the foundation of it based on it. Retard.

>If the theory triggers you, get to work making a new theory with even better predictive power.

>Even though we still don't know what we're talking about and are making up stuff as we go along, it's your job to prove our descriptions aren't describing things in terms that only we understand

Not an argument.

>No other form of criticism is valid.
Religion

>> No.11213998

>>11213984
>Well that's fine and dandy but that still doesn't explain what the cause is or what they're even talking about.

Okay? And?
Scientific theories are only scientific theories because they make testable predictions. They’re models that approximate some aspect of reality. They’re not theories because they “””explain what the cause is”””. Read books about the philosophy of science or something.

> "Time dialation". Well what properties does time have that make it real?

Doesn’t matter if it’s “real” or not. What matters is that relativity makes testable predictions about the occurrence of time dilation which we have confirmed to be accurate.

> Then stop talking about it so much and basing the foundation of it based on it. Retard.

Doing so provides predictive power, which is all that matters in science, so, uh, no. Make a new theory with even better predictive power if this theory triggers you.

> Religion

No, silly. It’s science. In science, theories live and die by their predictive power. If you have none, you lose.

>> No.11214012

>>11212640
LOL

>> No.11214019

I think Ken is a fraud. Can Ken do math on the spot? Like basic integrals or anything? I doubt Ken can. He reeks of a self educated twit that consequently has an education with huge gaps limited by what he knows.

>> No.11214028

>>11213939
...did you just ask "what is a measurement"?

>> No.11214034

>>11214019
That's why he is telling you that you are educated fools this very reason. You can go deep but have no vision or clear thinking at all. You can do as autistic kid math right on spot but you can't flush the toilet literally what he said in video and you just confirm it.

>> No.11214039

>>11214034
What predictions does your theory make that relativity doesn’t, and have these predictions been experimentally verified?

No, wait. Hold back on it so you can publish it as your physics thesis and earn a Nobel prize.

>> No.11214067

>>11214039

1. I never said that i stand behind his theories or im his fan. You come outside with this because you need to make yourself look better.

2. I pointed to something else that is not even part of his theories.

3. If you are asking if autists have problems to do things in normal life then yes check again youtube there are tons of videos where this is proven can do math but can't do almost anything in his life.

4. Even if i what will it matter for religious ? :D

>> No.11214101
File: 123 KB, 940x676, HondaS2000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214101

>>11214034
>Have an engineer work fix an engine
>Does great, suggest improvements that could be made to prevent further problems
>Maybe even suggests ways to save resources or increase reliability.
Yeah... I can flush a toilet and also blueprint a new one.

Excuse me sir, but what the fuck are you talking about? Also, if you are saying that people in college (I have worked so fucking hard to get into the university that I am in, I come from poverty) aren't smart in philosophy or liberal arts?

Go ahead, act like you understand philosophy better than a top 100 professor. I'd love to see you try, dough boy.

It comes down to "I can't see how theoretical translates to applied". Which makes you a massive pseud. Have you ever used applied calc? Pretty damn cool.
Have you seen what inventions and theoretical breakthroughs have lead to in engineering? Don't you think that breakthroughs that are coming from this area of knowledge will probably end up creating even more marvelous breakthroughs... maybe even provide us some context on what is happening in our world?

>> No.11214102 [DELETED] 

>>11213965
I know more than the two main players itt. Haven't seen a thing happening here since tooker chimed in. Neither are trying to gain understanding. Jist a pissing contest ot two guys out of their league.

>> No.11214106

>>11213965
I know more than the two main players itt. Haven't seen a thing happening here since tooker chimed in. Neither are trying to gain understanding. Just a pissing contest of two guys out of their league.

>> No.11214110

>>11214034
Oh wait.. clear vision... like a critique of ones value and moral systems? Or perhaps an analysis on past moralities that existed in different religious systems?
But, yeah clearly, there is absolutely no abstract direction that lies within people and also ideologies... or what they identify with.. kek.

>> No.11214127

>>11213998
>Doesn’t matter if it’s “real” or not.
Okay fine then, everything you're talking about is just unicorns and leprechauns and Im not gonna bother listening to your hogwash. Simple as that, at least based on your logic. Hell the flying spaghetti monster make space for all you care.

>Scientific theories are only scientific theories because they make testable predictions

No, see a theory usually starts with this thing called a "hypothesis" which while being an assumption is at least backed by something empirical, tests something that is empirical.

>They’re models that approximate some aspect of reality.
and as such should have a foundation

>Doing so provides predictive power, which is all that matters in science, so, uh, no

Rofl, so then name a property of space. Otherwise you're just predicting your own made up nonsense.

>It’s science. In science, theories live and die by their predictive power.
Which is why I'm asking for the empirical evidence for the "thing being tested". How is space tested? What properties does it have? Can you seriously not name one property? You actually expect people to just believe in it because you used a fancy language to describe it? Then when confronted you flat out just admit "oh it doesn't matter". So why are you testing to begin with? How can you convince me that Space is real/acts upon something when you at the same time say it doesn't even matter if it's real? Religion!

>> No.11214130
File: 142 KB, 1024x768, HuracanEvo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214130

>>11212636
6:10

See this where I find you to be ACTUALLY FUCKING RETARDED.
So there is extensive proof behind these equations right? You know.. real world phenomena from what.. base theories that you are saying are wrong?
Okay, welp they are getting some pretty good results. Are you saying that revamping the theories will give better results?
Is the scientific method important to you at all or?

I actually don't see the point in what you are saying. General relativity has lead to us being able to use GPS. All of these things have revolutionized the way we live.
In the end, I think that's what matters. We have abstracts like space travel that we are pursuing. These theories work to do this.

Do you not want to go to space? Would you rather sit in your armchair?

>> No.11214134

>>11214127
> Okay fine then, everything you're talking about is just unicorns and leprechauns and Im not gonna bother listening to your hogwash. Simple as that, at least based on your logic. Hell the flying spaghetti monster make space for all you care.

Where space comes from is of no relevance to relativity.

> No, see a theory usually starts with this thing called a "hypothesis" which while being an assumption is at least backed by something empirical, tests something that is empirical.

Gravity and motion are empirical things.

> and as such should have a foundation

In their predictive power.

> Rofl, so then name a property of space.

Of no significance to relativity. It has predictive power. You don’t.

> Which is why I'm asking for the empirical evidence for the "thing being tested".

Gravity and time dilation are tested. Your fixation on “space” is bizarre and amusing.

> You actually expect people to just believe in it because you used a fancy language to describe it?

It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Relativity has predictive power. You don’t.

>> No.11214137

>>11214130
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR3MTsFBwa4&list=PLqjazArpCr2NNHfbWnDizFa-qi1aV0Beg

>> No.11214138
File: 756 KB, 1260x840, TeslaInSpace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214138

>>11214127
See, we are both catching what he says at 6:10 about the "ground floor". We have been using in his words, "ground floor theories" for pretty much everything in the modern world.
They WORK. It would be fucking nuts if somebody created something that actually did effect these theories.
Such as the infamous grand unifying theory or "theory of everything" (I can't even imagine what this dude thinks of quantum mechanics, lmao).

>>11212636
Look into the theory of everything, it's a big deal for a reason. Top scientist are using LHC and LIGO in an attempt to solve more "low level".
Science isn't a new field. You have to be really smart and dedicated to make a valid point that isn't already in a textbook.

>> No.11214141

>>11214127
>so then name a property of space
Distance
Curvature
Permativity
Permeability
Impedance

>> No.11214151

>>11214134
>Where space comes from is of no relevance to relativity.
Spaghetti monster then

>Gravity and motion are empirical things.
that is wonderful, something to start out with. Now explain what causes them instead of re describing it thousands of times.

>In their predictive power.
Hypothesis is the foundation, a proposition made as a basis for reasoning. Still based in and with some evidence.

>Of no significance to relativity. It has predictive power. You don’t.
Well neither do you since you don't even know what it is you're talking about XD.

>Gravity and time dilation are tested. Your fixation on “space” is bizarre and amusing.

I would love to hear an explanation for how they test time. Let me guess, with time itself right?

>It doesn’t matter if you believe in it or not. Relativity has predictive power.

I suppose not, but you're still not really saying anything of prevalence to anything. Like a bum wailing in the streets about schizophrenic nonsense. Okay bummer...

>> No.11214159

>>11214127
>Rofl, so then name a property of space.
spacetime is the medium for gravitational waves through the gravitational interaction. spacetime is to gravity as air is to sound.

otherwise:
it exists
it has volume
it can contain radiation and matter
it has a pressure
it has a temperature
it can bend and curve
it has a refractive index of 1
it can dilate in time
events occur in it
it has a nondegenerate size because it is possible for two distinct objects to exist in it at two distinct points

etc

>> No.11214163

>>11214141
Now you've included properties that make it indistinguishable from matter, what say you? How is space different from matter?

>> No.11214170

>>11214159
>spacetime is the medium
>medium

So the Aether?
>for gravitational waves through the gravitational interaction
>Gravity is gravity

I am fucking dead mate, I've had it with this board.

>in time
>in frequency itself

>dilate in time


What is time? Is it a medium too?

>> No.11214174

>>11214163
Matter has none of the properties I enumerated

>> No.11214175
File: 84 KB, 879x485, falconHeavy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214175

>>11214137
Yeah... sorry, but the whole "rust belt genius" vibe, actually throws me off. The schtick is just cringe.
Also, can you prove any mathematical theories wrong? Do you have hypothesis that you are testing to prove the strange convoluted point you are attempting to make?
How does it help mankind, if at all? Why should I care?

>> No.11214180

>>11214170
nope, not the aether. the aether was for light. it was disproven.

the gravitational interaction is how massive objects attract each other. how do the massive objects know to attract each other? gravitational waves travel between them. what do they travel through? spacetime, the same way sound waves travel through air. we've detected these many times.

time isn't a medium.

unfortunately i'm not smart enough to explain this stuff simply enough for you to understand, so you'll have to forgive me. i never taught special ed during my years as a teaching assistant. any way, there are many free resources (very basic ones) online which you can use when you're feeling more interested in reading these topics. if reading's too hard for you, there's youtube as well.

see you. i hope you have a good day.

>> No.11214187

>>11214163
Have you read into quantum field theory? I won't pretend that I understand it, however it is something along the lines of "universe is a field with varying density".
I believe it may also help to explain darkmatter.
>>11214170
Time is a property of matter. Best I've heard is linear entropy with rates varying on conditions.

>> No.11214190
File: 280 KB, 1154x1000, 88586_hazbin-hotel-wallpaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214190

>>11214137
What is the point you are trying to make, monkey? Any theory you have shat on has lead to some of the most amazing accomplishments of man. You have contributing nothing beyond your salary.

>> No.11214195

>>11214151
>Spaghetti monster then

You can believe that if you like. Makes no difference to me.

> that is wonderful, something to start out with. Now explain what causes them instead of re describing it thousands of times.

Doesn’t matter what causes it. Only predictive power matters.

> Hypothesis is the foundation, a proposition made as a basis for reasoning. Still based in and with some evidence.

The evidence of relativity’s predictive power is well documented.

> Well neither do you since you don't even know what it is you're talking about XD.

Wrong. I am talking about relativity’s predictive power.

> I would love to hear an explanation for how they test time. Let me guess, with time itself right?

How do you test matter? With matter. Oooooo.

> I suppose not, but you're still not really saying anything of prevalence to anything.

I am.
Relativity has predictive power.
You don’t.
Predictive power is what matters.

>> No.11214196

>>11214190
based charlie

>> No.11214203

>>11214175
>Also, can you prove any mathematical theories wrong?
They're descriptions. They don't prove anything.

>Do you have hypothesis that you are testing to prove the strange convoluted point you are attempting to make?
What hypothesis? I am asking for proof/ an empirical testable thing that would prove the existence of "space".

>How does it help mankind, if at all? Why should I care?
That's a philosophical question for you to answer.

>>11214180
nope, not the aether. the aether was for light. it was disproven.
What disproved it? Which theory of it was disproven? Surely not all of them.

>how do the massive objects know to attract each other? gravitational waves travel between them
A wave is what something does. Not a "thing" that dictates the interaction between two objects. So it's what the objects are doing that is mutually impelling them to do whatever it is they do (depends on object in question).

>what do they travel through? spacetime, the same way sound waves travel through air. we've detected these many times.
I mean you can redescribe it all you want, it basically just sounds like a rehashed "Aether" theory. Same medium with a different word describing it.

>time isn't a medium.
What "is" time that makes it phenomenal/ empirical then?

>unfortunately i'm not smart enough to explain this stuff simply enough for you to understand, so you'll have to forgive me.
Or to actually answer such a simple question.

>>11214187
>however it is something along the lines of "universe is a field with varying density".
Rehashed Aether theory
>I believe it may also help to explain darkmatter.
Another word for "Aether"

>Time is a property of matter.
A physical property? What characteristics does it have? How is time exhibited by matter?

>> No.11214216

>>11214195
>How do you test matter? With matter. Oooooo.
So then space is not testable and therefore is not a thing worthy of discussion when it comes to science. Case closed.

>I am.
>Relativity has predictive power.
>You don’t.

>haha you only know I'm wrong when I'm actually more incorrect than you previously assumed.

Oh my mistake, how powerful you are.

>> No.11214219
File: 63 KB, 720x706, Brainlet2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214219

>>11214203
>That's a philosophical question for me to answer
DOES IT CURE CANCER, FUCKER? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

>> No.11214233

>>11214216
> So then space is not testable and therefore is not a thing worthy of discussion when it comes to science. Case closed.

>Volume doesn’t exist
>Distance doesn’t exist
>Height doesn’t exist
>Geometry doesn’t exist

Yikes

> >haha you only know I'm wrong when I'm actually more incorrect than you previously assumed.

I’m not incorrect. Relativity has not failed any predictive tests.

>> No.11214238

>>11214159

it not because if there is nothing its 0

it doesn't it's just a term for something that is not there
radiation energy emitted by the object kek.

Temperature is also created by how much object have energy. I mean even stupid atomist should know how this thing work.

Pressure ? Really ? Vacuum ? Nothing ? Ok.

It can bend and curve ? What next you will tell me it can made me superman ?

It has refractive index of 1... Yes if there is nothing to point it at then it's a 1.

Diletation of magnitude ? Please.


Non-degradability means it's non existent because everything else that exist have some.

You are litteeraly some MIT Nigglet.

>> No.11214240

>giving Kenniggers (You)s

>> No.11214245
File: 160 KB, 375x298, NietzcheJung.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214245

>>11214203
Okay, wait, so if you have the answers to universe.. like you are saying.. then why aren't you a note-worthy scientist? Why have I not heard of you before?
Obviously somebody who can see conclusions happening by teams of scientist studying quantum mechanics well before they are discovered should be of at least moderate importance in terms of research, no?

You know, unless you are just a /reddit/-tier pseud who has nothing to show for how "great" they are.

>> No.11214251

>>11214233
>Volume doesn’t exist
>Distance doesn’t exist
>Height doesn’t exist
>Geometry doesn’t exist

OF WHAT? Those are only observed in matter.

>> No.11214252

>>11214245
>groupthink mentality the post.

>> No.11214255

>Imagine being and atomist.
>Imagine saying there is a space.
>Imagine keep saying because we have a proof on it's non-degrability.

How retarded do you have to be to point at something tell me it have values that everything else doesn't and tell me it's a real thing ? Just how retarded you are ?

>> No.11214261

>>11214255
Best thing literally that you believe in atoms that have degradable values like literally it's what time is based on. Everything ages everything moves,emit energy based on degradability and you just come to me and with serious face tell me "It's there because it does not degrade" how ? In what fucking stupid head that this idea even grow up ?

>> No.11214263

>>11214251
Those things only exist because space exists, retard. Do you even geometry?

>> No.11214267

>>11214263
>Those things only exist because space exists, retard.
Why? Because you said so? Not good enough, Mormon.

>Do you even geometry?
What geometrical structure does space exhibit?

>> No.11214272

>>11214252
It's true though. You can't actually answer that question. You haven't impacted the values of the public, contributed to science, caused social change or even really uplifted your fan base.
This whole thing accomplishes nothing and you've yet to explain why I should care, saying I need to answer this for myself.
>I'd rather not contribute to the world and just sit at my desk eating KFC and grobbling about how right I am.

>> No.11214283

>>11214267
>What geometrical structure does space exhibit?
distance
curvature

>> No.11214301
File: 259 KB, 471x446, 1429608177818.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214301

>>11214272
>It's true though. You can't actually answer that question. You haven't impacted the values of the public, contributed to science, caused social change or even really uplifted your fan base.

I am not Ken Wheeler. What fan base do you speak of?

>>11214283
>distance
>curvature

Those are what geometrical structures have, yes. What geometrical structure does space exhibit?

>> No.11214303

>>11214301
>What geometrical structure does space exhibit?
Distance and curvature

>> No.11214325
File: 326 KB, 278x643, Screenshot_2019-08-08 Berserk - Vol 10 Golden Age Arc Reunion in the Abyss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
11214325

>>11214303
>Distance and curvature

I have never heard of such a geometrical structure. What would you call something like that? A Distancagon? A curvatroid? I don't get it, perhaps you didn't understand what I was asking.
What geometrical structure does space exhibit? An example of a geometrical structure would be a "sphere" and something that would exhibit something close to or similar to a "sphere" that exists would be an "orange". An orange is "spherical". It's not an actual geometrical "sphere", it is a fruit we eat and called "orange". However it still expresses and exhibits a similar nature to a "sphere" in its shape. So what geometrical structure would space exhibit? It is real after is it not? It is tangible and empirically testable no? It can be measured right? Like a shape can be measured right? So what shape does it exhibit?

>> No.11214341

>>11214325
Never heard of it? Huh. Maybe you should learn about differential geometry then.

>> No.11214581

>>11212636
I once tried to read Ken Wheelers book "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism", mostly for shits and giggles, but also because I don't just like to dismiss something out of hand if the guy that made it has actually written an exposition on his ideas.

Anyway it's literally unreadable. No definitions are given for whatever the fuck "counterspace" is, a good chunk of the text is made up of quotes (some of them from the author himself? I don't really know why someone would quote themselves in their own book, and not just ya know write it down). A lot of it is just shit flinging at quantum mechanics and general relativity. Hilariously he credits Einstein with being the "puppeteer of the cult of quantum", despite Einstein never liking QM and arguing against it until his death. You get some really strange bits like:
>Ignorantly and in error GR and QM have declared 99.9999999% of an atom is “empty space”
Despite the Rutherford scattering experiment being preformed in 1909 a full 5 years before Bohr and his old quantum theory, and I don't even know what GR has to do with atoms.

The whole thing is just a mess, makes no predictions, doesn't show how this """theory""" could subsume established results (all the confirmatory experiments of QM and GR don't even get mentioned), and the evidence for this """"theory""""" seems to be just a series of pictures and drawings.

If I had to sum the """"theory""" up, I'd say it's like your standard electric universe """""""""theory"""""""" only, somehow, less substantiated.
>0/10
>Bad even by pseudoscience standards

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action