Fucking gravity, how does it work?

File: 488 KB, 499x367, 1377226092321.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fucking gravity, how does it work? Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:09:37 2014 No.6453397 [Reply] [Original]

I've been researching forms of energy for fun, and recently discovered that, yes, all energy is really kinetic or potential. Third grade didn't actually lie to me. But I can't understand gravity. Please bear with me.

So space-time is displaced by matter. Matter attracts other matter by gravitational force because the "path" it was following through space was curved by that other object. I get that. What I don't get is how gravitational force is also potential energy.

Say two cool rocky objects, the first bigger than the second encounter each other in space. Object 2 finds an orbit around object 1. 2 is falling at an angle where it misses object 1 indefinitely. There is no atmosphere and there is no drag. Potential gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic energy in object 2 so that it does not fall into object 1. Where does that potential energy come from? There is no kinetic transfer between the two objects. There is no radiation, light, anything. Pure gravity involved with the closed systems that are objects 1 and 2.

This is blowing my mind man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:17:07 2014 No.6453402 Mass has a lower dark matter concentration, and because there is less dark matter between bodies, the higher pressure of dark matter from the outside pushes the objects of mass together.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:19:06 2014 No.6453404 >>6453402 So my understanding of gravity was wrong is what you're saying?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:22:36 2014 No.6453408 File: 34 KB, 413x395, 1394939613921.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6453402 10/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:25:36 2014 No.6453415 >>6453408 what was wrong with that? I have an incomplete understanding of the current understanding of dark matter, and I know general knowledge of that subject is small in the first place

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:26:06 2014 No.6453417 >>6453415 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation Here "Dark Matter" is a buzzword.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:28:06 2014 No.6453421 >>6453417 Thank you, I didn't realize he was referencing an outdated gravitational theory.

Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:29:06 2014 No.6453423

>>6453402
"Dark matter" always leaves me a bit weary to trust anything that comes after it in a sentence... but the process you describe seems logical. Its the same way weather works really, pressure differences and what not. Though if space was infinite, in this case gravity would be much stronger no?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:31:06 2014 No.6453430 >>6453423 >>6453417 Apparently that was bullshit, so continue to beware dark matter

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 1 14:32:06 2014 No.6453431 >>6453423 See >>6453417

Anonymous Tue Apr 1 17:43:25 2014 No.6453742

>>6453397
i think it is kind of like the pressure thing. dark matter is definitely a buzzword but for physics to continue and for the model to grow more complex and make more net sense, there have to be like other types of phases of existence beyond matter and empty space pressing on in directions we dont understand.

also there's that sort of theory that everything in the everything is like one dimension, so you could sort of think of it like two wads of loose tied up string buzz past eachother and the string gets all tangled and bunched up. plus there are more subatomic particles that we havent seen yet obviously. there are likely some revolving and vibrating at macrohigh speeds with semi-nonexistent densities and pushing other things along slowly because of their half-densities.

there are any number of explanations that would all fail to account for something or other.

when you are thinking about non-newtonian shit, try not to think of the universe and everything as separate interacting entities so much as a huge undulating and pulsing and phasing single blob.

who knows

Anonymous Tue Apr 1 18:00:19 2014 No.6453779

Gravity is a conservative force, meaning the energy needed for two bodies to move in relation to one another is independant of the path. This implies that during the course of the path, a body must convert potential energy to or from kinetic energy until it arrives to its destination. Potential energy is where the energy "goes" as it loses kinetic energy. the energy is still there, it just isn't contributing to momentum.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 13:14:21 2014 No.6455585

>>6453779
Holy shit everything makes sense now. Thank you.

Except, that means, I think, that if an object had no kinetic energy in which to convert to potential gravitational force then it would not be influenced by another object's gravity.

For example, if object 1 is approaching a stationary object 2, object 2 would be unaffected while object 1 would be influenced by object 2's gravity. Given how impossible it would be to find an object with zero kinetic energy I don't think this could be tested, but that would be how we could expect them to behave, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 13:46:52 2014 No.6455620 >>6455585 Or would the stationary object have potential energy in relation to its distance from the other object?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 13:55:22 2014 No.6455628 >>6455585 >stationary object They don't exist, motion is relative

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 13:58:22 2014 No.6455632 Gravity is an energy field. They like to use the word Force, but it means energy. Everything is made of energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:02:52 2014 No.6455636 >>6455628 I know. But since energy is measurable, It should be possible to completely remove kinetic energy from matter. Therefore, a question can be answered; would a stationary object, relative to all other matter, be influenced by gravity?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:04:52 2014 No.6455640 >>6455636 >But since energy is measurable and how is that measurable when you don't know how fast the thing is going?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:06:22 2014 No.6455641 >>6455632 Gravity is not an energy field. Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of space-time around matter.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:12:52 2014 No.6455648

>>6455640
It isn't at the point where there is no motion, obviously. This question is realistically impossible to answer, but we can theorize without evidence. This is a discussion board after all.

If we could measure the energy of all matter in the universe and find an object with no momentum, no motion relative to all other matter in the universe, would that object be influenced by gravity?

By our current understanding of gravitation I would say it would not be

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:19:22 2014 No.6455662 >>6455641 >Gravity is a consequence of the curvature of space-time around matter. Haha, no. Spacetime isn't real.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:21:52 2014 No.6455665

>>6455648
>If we could measure the energy of all matter in the universe
you can't measure the "energy" of matter the motion is relative
>find an object with no momentum
You can define this to be anything, what do you not understand about motion being relative.
>no motion relative to all other matter in the universe
what the fuck does that even mean?
It has to move in relation to something or else everything would have to be stationary or move in unison.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:23:52 2014 No.6455670 >>6455662 If you would like to disprove the theory of relativity go ahead man.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:29:22 2014 No.6455676

>>6455665
This really isn't that difficult to understand.

Momentum is the kinetic energy of an object. Relative to each other, we can measure the amount of kinetic energy objects have. If it were possible to measure the kinetic energy of all mater in the universe relative to each other, we could make a true scale as to how much kinetic energy an object has.

The fact that an object's kinetic energy can increase implies it can also decrease. In fact we know it does. What I am saying is if we had the momentum of everything measured we could continue decreasing the kinetic energy of an object to "zero" relative to all other matter.

So again, would that stationary object be influenced by gravity?

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:38:22 2014 No.6455691

>>6455676
>Relative to each other
>relative to each other
>true scale
How about no

So imagine you have universe with 2 objects which of them is stationary when you:
>measure the kinetic energy of all mater in the universe relative to each other, we could make a true scale as to how much kinetic energy an object has.
Ohh geee you can't tell....
What about 3 objects, which one is stationary? or where is the stationary point?
You should be seeing where this is going by now, but incase you don't here is a hint:
You are just arbitrarily assigning a point of reference and setting that to 0
Doesn't make it any more legit as setting ground to be non moving even though it's orbiting around the sun or your mom as stationary in the kitchen even though she (it) orbits around my dick.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 14:38:52 2014 No.6455694
File: 19 KB, 282x282, 092.282x282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6453397

lol.

you don't understand how gravity works ?
neither do scientists.

they constantly experiment to understand
why gravitationnal force and quantum
interactions can take place in this
unique universe.

so don't be bothered if you don't
get how the moon orbits around us
scientists don't know either
they are just making theories.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 15:15:52 2014 No.6455753 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy%E2%80%93momentum_pseudotensor This is how energy is defined in general relativity.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:01:05 2014 No.6455947

>>6455691
For fucks sake, you stupid shit.

Measuring the momentum of all matter in the universe would make everything relative to each other. We can make the earth relative to the sun, the solar system relative to the galaxy, the galaxy relative to the Virgo supercluster, Virgo relative to the observable universe, on and on. By mapping everything relative to everything else we can pinpoint the center. Probably the point of the big bang. That is the true scale. By measuring something relative to that point we could determine what "zero" kinetic energy is. And again, would an object with no kinetic energy relative to a true stationary point in space be influenced by gravity?

This isn't fucking possible to determine, but wrap your pea-brain around this idea PLEASE. If I have to explain this simple as shit concept to you one more time I will stop replying

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:25:18 2014 No.6456021

>>6455947
You can't know if sun orbits the earth or if earth orbits the sun.
But you should answer this:
Where is the "center" of 2 body universe where the two bodies move away from each others at 5 m/s.
If you can't tell then how you expect to find it in a universe of uncountable objects?

Mind I remind you that all movement is relative and it's literally impossible to know which one is moving away from the other one or if they are moving away from a common third point.

Again you can just make any point 0 point but that doesn't make it any more legit.

>If I have to explain this simple as shit concept to you one more time I will stop replying
Please do you are literally making 0 sense with your rambling, finish high school first.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:30:17 2014 No.6456033

>>6455641
>Gravity is not an energy field

But it is. This can be easily proven by observing gravity-assisted fly-bys. The speed of the object is dramatically increased by gravity. Energy is transfered from the gravity field to the object. It has to come from somewhere because you can't create energy out of thin air.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:33:19 2014 No.6456038 >>6455694 Was this suppose to be a haiku or something?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:37:18 2014 No.6456039 >>6456033 Look up the theory of relativity. As >>6453779 explained, when not used as momentum that energy is potential energy. There is no ambient gravitational energy. Gravity is a phenomena that is the result of space-time curving around matter.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:42:19 2014 No.6456048

>>6456039

Space-time is a mathematical model, an abstraction, a tool or an interpretation. It should not be viewed literally since it's a flawed model subject to misinterpretation. Gravity is a physical field surrounding matter. It acts in a real physical manner. It occupies space with a density of energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 17:48:03 2014 No.6456063 >>6455753

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:01:33 2014 No.6456081 >>6455648 Have you taken a physics course? Energy doesn't determine gravity. If an object has mass and is some distance away from another object that has mass, there will be a gravitational force. Fg = (6.67E-11 * m1 * m2) / d^2

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:19:54 2014 No.6456117 >>6453397 I think you're mixing up General Relativity and Newtonian gravity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:32:24 2014 No.6456140 >>6456048 It's a real thing that can and has been measured. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:34:24 2014 No.6456144 >>6456140 >http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/ Wellllllll... the "metric tensor" of GR may not actually refer to the geometry of spacetime.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:36:54 2014 No.6456149 >>6456140 Holy shit I though for a second that that was a bullshit link and you were making fun of him thanks to this: >04may_epic/ >epic may may

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 18:40:54 2014 No.6456160

>>6456140

Gravity is a very physical force, and yet Relativity makes it sound abstract and complex. Everything I said can be demonstrated and proven. But space-time can not be demonstrated because it's fucking nothing. The energy of gravity physically occupies space, providing resistence to any that comes into that space from the outside. It interferes with mass-less photons, because it is energy occupying space. It physically affects matter that enters into the space. It physically interferes, it hits into the object, reducing it's momentum, transferring energy as heat, surrounding the object because it is a field, and compressing the object because it is physically being hit by the energy in space. The object becomes heated and compressed by energy. And when removed from the gravity field, it decompresses with great energy. All this is true. This is what is actually happening. Gravity is a physical field of energy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:45:41 2014 No.6456288 >>6456081 The more energy matter has the higher its mass, which in fact effects the strength of gravitational force.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:48:41 2014 No.6456293 >>6456160 If you are trying to convince us that the theory of relativity has been dis proven, then you need to provide some citations; because last I checked relativity was still one of the cornerstones of physics

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:53:11 2014 No.6456300 >>6456081 >>6456288 Also, all objects have momentum, therefore providing the kinetic energy of gravitational force. As >>6453779 explained earlier

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:53:41 2014 No.6456301

>>6456293
>cornerstones of physics

You can't spell Physical without Physics. Gravity can hurt people it's so physical. But according to Einstein it's Le Abstract Geometry of Le Tensors and Vectors Magically Warping Le Space-Time. Just because something is math doesn't make it physics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:54:11 2014 No.6456303 >>6456301 I honestly think you're trolling

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 19:57:11 2014 No.6456307

>>6456303
Good, remain stupid, bum.

Light bends when it enters a medium of different density. Just like moving from air into water, and from "empty" space into an energy field. It doesn't need Relativity to do this.

Mystery solved, gravity is a physical density of energy that occupies the spacial field around matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:02:11 2014 No.6456316 >>6456307 >>6456301 Of course the universe doesn't NEED us to quantify it, it works on its own. 4-Vectors and tensors are just the mathematical language we use to describe it. What the fuck is your point?

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:03:41 2014 No.6456318

>>6456307
>You can't spell Physical without Physics
>Light bends when it enters a medium of different density. Just like moving from air into water, and from "empty" space into an energy field. It doesn't need Relativity to do this.

Mystery solved, gravity is a physical density of energy that occupies the spacial field around matter.
> I don't need to test things, I'll just assume I'm right based upon observations unrelated to the current discussion!

I look forward to reading your published findings, I bet it'll be stimulating

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:42:17 2014 No.6456416 >>6456318 It's been tested. It's a fact. Problem?????? Explain to me why we need Relativity. Why do we need something so non-physical to explain a phenomena so fundamentally physical?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:49:17 2014 No.6456436 >>6456416 Why do we need to explain Newtonian mechanics in terms of vectors? Why do we need something so non-physical to explain a phenomenon so fundamentally physical?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:49:47 2014 No.6456435 >>6456416 You are so ignorant and incapable of discussing this subject that engaging with you is pointless. You can't claim modern physics is wrong by saying "I say so" you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:50:17 2014 No.6456440 >>6456416 Explain to me why we need numbers. Why do we need something so abstract and non-physical to explain phenomena that are so fundamentally physical?

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:50:47 2014 No.6456438

>>6456416
>Why do we need something so non-physical to explain a phenomena so fundamentally physical?

>implying the universe abides to your own subjective conception of what is physical
>implying any physical concept is not a man-made construct in the first place

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:51:17 2014 No.6456441 >>6456436 See>>6456435

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:53:48 2014 No.6456447 >>6456440 See>>6456435

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 20:58:08 2014 No.6456462 >>6456441 >>6456447 Wow, it's almost as if I was being sarcastic in these posts: >>6456436 >>6456440

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:01:07 2014 No.6456474

>>6456438
Hey, it's a matter of interpretation. Einstein's interpretation is unnecessery and useless ... and rather magical. How do warp space-time and transfer energy without a system of energy? Which might explain why modern physics is such a dead end. It's stuck with useless magic for explanations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:02:08 2014 No.6456477 >>6456462 I'm so sorry, that sarcasm was so good I thought it was the serious ramblings of >>6456416 Bravo anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:05:37 2014 No.6456481 >>6456474 If you would be bothered to read this thread on its entirety, you would find that physics is not magic. But I have a feeling you'll never understand it, so just keep believing its magic

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:07:07 2014 No.6456487

>>6456477
>Bravo anon
Thanks. Bravo to you for taking a stand against his shitposts.

I was going to spam that guy with more sarcastic posts, but now it seems pointless. Someday, maybe he'll actually learn physics, and he'll realize how retarded he sounds.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:10:37 2014 No.6456498

>>6456474
>Einstein's interpretation is unnecessery and useless ... and rather magical
Because evidently Newton's theory could already explain and predict all the same phenomena that Einstein's does, who the hell needs this Einstein crackpot anyway? Give me my "gravity travels at infinite speed" back. Oh you can't explain the precession of Mercury's orbit? You can't explain why we can see stars directly behind other stars in our line of sight? You can't explain why our GPS satellites show a discrepancy with what is expected from Newton's theory? Fuck you Einstein that's what, who gives a fuck about any of that magical shit

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:17:08 2014 No.6456521 >>6456498 It took about a century to figure out a use for Relativity. I'd call that minimally useful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:21:08 2014 No.6456531 >>6456521 I'd call your brain completely useless

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:26:38 2014 No.6456546 >>6456531 We didn't need Einstein to put a man on the moon or to build a nuclear bomb. Newton, yes. Einstein, no.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:29:07 2014 No.6456561 >>6456546 Lol does e=mc2 mean anything to you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:30:07 2014 No.6456567 >>6456546 >we didn't need Einstein to build a nuclear bomb Such... autism. I didn't think it was possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:32:07 2014 No.6456572 >>6456546 >We didn't need Einstein to put a man on the moon or to build a nuclear bomb Funny you should mention the nuclear bomb, when he's the guy who initiated its development.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:57:06 2014 No.6456629

>>6453397
This confusion arises from the teaching of energy as though it is some kind of "substance" that flows between objects.

Energy is a number. This number is found as a time symmetry of the Lagrangian. The lagrangian is a function of 3 things, coordinates, coordinate time derivatives and time. But, when describing energy we say the Lagrangian doesn't depend on time by definition. By extension energy is a function of two things and only two things. Coordinates and coordinate time derivatives. The coordinate dependent terms are labeled potential. The coordinate time derivative terms are labeled kinetic.

The two have to change to keep the sum constant because that is the literal definition. Energy is defined as a number that is constant in time for a closed system.

The confusion arises when you split energy up into those two terms I mentioned, and then look at them in isolation without understanding where they fit into a bigger picture. They are just two pieces of a whole and one must transform into the other.

It's a bit like if I rotate a vector in a 2d plane. If you rotate the vector you will observe both x and y coordinates change. You can't have just one change or it's not a rotation. If you observed the x and y coordinates in isolation under rotation, and you didn't know what it was, you'd be understandably mystified. You'd be like "why does x always change when y changes in a manner where x^2 + y^2 is always constant, that's crazy!" But, if you knew about the properties of Euclidean space and rotations you wouldn't be so surprised.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 21:58:36 2014 No.6456630

>>6456561
>>6456567
>>6456572

Haha, what a bunch of bullshit.

Newtonian physics puts a man on the moon. Einsteinian "physics" puts Michio Kaku into Hyperspace .. and finds Flight 370. The less physical your explanations are, the less you can do with them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:03:06 2014 No.6456644 >>6456629 I think I love you. Please, tell this retard>>6456630 how wrong he is in your sweet sweet voice

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:04:36 2014 No.6456646 >>6456630 So demonstrate to us how Newtonian mechanics explains the atomic bomb better than Einstein's mass-energy equivalence.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:09:36 2014 No.6456662

>>6456646
Einstein sent a letter of recommendation to the President to go forward with the development of the bomb. He later regretted this. His physics had nothing to do with building the bomb, acting only as a passive confirmation of the principles developed by more practical physicists.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:13:42 2014 No.6456678 >>6456662 Great demonstration, I'm absolutely convinced by your lack of evidence, particularly how you completely ignored the challenge of the comment you responded to

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:23:42 2014 No.6456707 File: 3 KB, 246x67, energymass.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6456678 It isn't Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. It's Poincare's.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:29:12 2014 No.6456731 >>6456707 Alright so demonstrate to us how Newtonian mechanics explains the atomic bomb better than Poincaré's mass-energy equivalence

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:32:42 2014 No.6456741 >>6456662 Thank you for ignoring what I said: >So demonstrate to us how Newtonian mechanics explains the atomic bomb Dumbass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:47:42 2014 No.6456768 >>6456741 Newtonian physics explains how they dropped the bomb. Einstein's physics doesn't explain how they built it. Happy now, troll?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:53:12 2014 No.6456776 >>6456768 Relativity can also explain how they dropped the bomb. Mass-energy equivalence explains how they built it. Einstein is 2 for two but Newton is only 1 for 2. You also once again failed to explain anything, you fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:55:13 2014 No.6456782 >>6456707 Poincare's equation did not describe matter as we know it. Einstein's did, they are not the same.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 22:57:12 2014 No.6456790 >>6456630 >The less physical your explanations are, the less you can do with them. Newtonian gravity isn't a physical model, nor for that matter are Maxwell's equations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 23:06:42 2014 No.6456815 >>6455662 Scientists literally just confirmed gravitational waves. Go relativity, relativity #1 theory!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 23:10:42 2014 No.6456823 >>6456815 Actually no, this is more indirect evidence. The Hulse-Taylor binary was the first such evidence. Direct detection will happen in a few years.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 23:18:42 2014 No.6456843 >>6456823 Are they only explainable through relativity at the moment?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 2 23:31:54 2014 No.6456859 >>6456790 Actually, Maxwell's equations are physically correct, especially when formulated using 4-vectors. The magnetic field can be viewed as a relativistic distortion of the electric field. After all, Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant.

Anonymous Wed Apr 2 23:46:53 2014 No.6456894

>>6456843
Gravitational waves? Yes there is no analogue in Newtonian dynamics.

>>6456859
Physically correct doesn't mean it's a physical model. A physical model explain's the mechanism behind it. Maxwell's equations don't describe what the electromagnetic interaction is. GR is a "physically correct" model by the same standard on the right scales.

Anonymous Thu Apr 3 00:33:37 2014 No.6456984
File: 28 KB, 510x522, tidal-heating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Nothing contradicts gravity as being an energy field. In fact, it explains it better than other theories. Gravity assisted flybys and the tidal heating of orbiting moons demonstrates the transfer of energy.

<--Frictional heating inside the moon? Hey, that sounds like energy. Is heat energy? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is. But it isn't really happening, is it? It can't be energy because gravity isn't energy. It's warped space-time. The moon is hitting itself with it's own hands. Stop hitting yourself, moon.

Anonymous Thu Apr 3 00:34:08 2014 No.6456985
File: 48 KB, 432x251, cartoon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

And you got to love the analogy they give for gravity assists. It's like bouncing a ball off a moving train. The ball gains momentum.

However, bouncing a real satellite off the planet's surface may produce slightly different results.

Anonymous Thu Apr 3 14:03:54 2014 No.6457641

>>6456984
>>6456985
Relativity can explain that. But you are so goddamn stupid I'm not going to explain anything to you. You won't address what I, or anyone else, says because your pseudo-science about gravity being an energy field doesn't hold up to shit.

Read a book you ignorant fuck

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 3 15:49:52 2014 No.6457763 File: 85 KB, 376x477, the-emperors-new-fabric.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6457641 No it can't. And you can't explain it because Einstein didn't know about gravity assists and lunar heating.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 17:58:16 2014 No.6459892

>>6457763
You obviously don't understand the theory of relativity well enough, if at all, to claim it can't explain something.

You also havn't demonstrated an understanding of Newtonian gravitation because you ignore its shortcomings.

I don't think you're remotely qualified to give opinions of any merit on the subject of gravity or physics as a scientific field

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 18:07:45 2014 No.6459917 >>6459892 I was studying Relativity at age 13 long before you were even born. gtfo

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:02:15 2014 No.6460001

>>6459917
I could care less how old you are. Studying a subject does not mean one understands it. Not all octogenarians are experts or geniuses in their field. Pioneers of the sciences often spent their entire lives studying something, and all their lives they were wrong.

Energy cannot exist where there is not matter or, more accurately, mass. Mass-energy equivalence means not only can mass become energy but that mass is energy. Space lacks mass and therefore space lacks energy.

Gravity is not a field of energy. The space between objects does not have mass.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:07:45 2014 No.6460009

>>6460001
>Energy cannot exist where there is not matter or, more accurately, mass
lolwut, how about photons

>Space lacks mass and therefore space lacks energy
how about vacuum energy, how about dark energy

I'm not the other guy you were replying to, that guy doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about but apparently you don't either

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:08:45 2014 No.6460011

>>6460001
>Energy cannot exist where there is not matter.
Classically, no.
Quantum-mechanically, yes.

In fact, one of the unresolved problems in theoretical physics is figuring out why the vacuum energy doesn't make as large an impact on General Relativity as expected.
Look up "cosmological constant problem."
(I'm just entering this thread, I'm not part of the argument right now)

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:21:15 2014 No.6460031 >>6460009 >>6460011 Thank doge, smart people. I was referring to gravity, but if we get into quantum field theory,yes, you are both correct. I think we can agree that gravity is not an energy field though, no?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:39:15 2014 No.6460056

Honestly, I don't think "gravity" as such exists. First we are taught that "gravity" is a "force" that someone acts on objects thousands of miles apart, and then we are told that "gravity" is the curvature of something called "space time". So first we have some supernatural spirit that moves masses towards each other, then we have some incomprehensible geometry. Yet these theories are both called "gravity", which is extremely disingenuous and gives the impression that there's some sort of continuity between Newton and Einstein and not a complete break. Hopefully we will move past Einstein in a few years.

Physics has become pseudoscience. You know like how sociologists try and shove mathematical equations into their theories to give them an air of objectivity and scientificness? That's what has happened to physics. It is mathematical hocuspocus with a complete disconnect from reality and empirical evidence. I feel sorry for physics students. They think they are being taught a highly rigorous discipline but that's far from the case. Physicists are sophists for the most part. They don't know what they are talking about and when you call them out on it their first line of defence is, "if you understood the math, it would make sense."

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:48:37 2014 No.6460062

>>6460056
>Physics has become pseudoscience. You know like how sociologists try and shove mathematical equations into their theories to give them an air of objectivity and scientificness?

Wait, you mean to say because physics tries to model observations with a mathematical framework, it's a pseudoscience? I wouldn't be feeling sorry for physics students, I'd be feeling sorry for yourself. You're posting on a science board and you don't even have a clue of how science is actually done.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:51:37 2014 No.6460071 >>6460062 Is gravity one of the 4 fundamental forces or curvature of spacetime?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 19:59:06 2014 No.6460087

>>6460071
It doesn't exist. Google "gravity does not exist".

>>6460062
No, I'm saying physicists have created a mathematical framework and they are forcing observations to conform to that framework, and systematically ignore any observations that cannot be forced to do so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:02:06 2014 No.6460091 >>6460071 By definition it is one of the 4 fundamental forces of nature. It can be modeled by the curvature of spacetime.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:04:07 2014 No.6460097

>>6460087
That's actually the opposite of what physicists do.

Newtonian gravity explained things, but it also didn't explain tons of things. How did they make up for that? Not by ignoring them - by coming up with general relativity. GR explains tons more things but also leaves out lots. How are they dealing with that? Loop quantum gravity, string theory, etc.

Physics is about finding out everything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:04:36 2014 No.6460096 >>6460091 I should add that model has limits, and what gravity "is" might change depending on what model you're using.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:06:06 2014 No.6460099

>>6460087
I don't know if I would say they are forcing it. Where they don't have answers serious physicists generally admit to not having the answer.

For example, general relativity is still incompatible with quantum mechanics, but research is being done to find a new theory that does. Neither theory is right, which is why physicists still do research at all.

Demanding the right answer or none at all of physicists is unfair

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:06:06 2014 No.6460102

Also, the concept of "forces" is occultism / mysticism. Saying that objects are pushed and pulled around by disembodied, immaterial, incorporeal "forces" is the same as saying that angels are responsible for the movement of the stars and planets.
Of course, physicists are so embarrassed by this fact that they hide behind mathematics and say things like, "oh, force is just the rate of change of momentum. Force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration." When you ask them what a force is ontologically, I.e. what a force actually is, they give you the "mathematical model" cop out.
Newton spent most of his time studying occultism. Never forget that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:09:06 2014 No.6460109 >>6460096 Cop out. If science really is just made up of "models" you ought to stop claiming to have knowledge of the natural world, because clearly you don't by your own tacit admission.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:10:37 2014 No.6460112

>>6460056
>So first we have some supernatural spirit that moves masses towards each other, then we have some incomprehensible geometry

We can't explain why massive objects move towards each other, we can only describe how they do it. The motion of gravitationally-bound objects can be described accurately by assuming that they accelerate towards each other at a rate proportional to the inverse of the distance between them. And it can be described even more accurately by assuming that they follow straight lines in a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian geometry whose curvature is given by the mass and energy present within it.

In any case we don't explain why these objects move at all, we just come up with mathematical relations that allow to model how they move. Einstein's model is a more accurate one than Newton's, that's all. And none of this is pseudoscience, it's you who has a wrong idea about what science is in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:11:06 2014 No.6460114 >>6460097 Physics doesn't explain things, it "saves the appearances". It's a hoax. Really no better than astrology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:13:06 2014 No.6460117 >>6460056 >>6460087 >>6460102 >>6460109 >>6460114 What are you even doing on a science board? You detest and don't understand what science is or why it is done.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:14:36 2014 No.6460118

>>6460112

> it's you who has a wrong idea about what science is in the first place.

Well that's the scientists fault for claiming to have knowledge of the natural world, when according to you they have no such knowledge. What you are saying is that physics is like drawing a map of a territory, and that by looking at the map, the "mathematical model", you don't learn anything about the territory itself.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:16:37 2014 No.6460122

>>6460117
No, I detest sophistry which is largely what science has become. People selling popular theories and then sycophants parroting these theories for recognition and occupations.Yet we are sold the myth that scientists are selfless crusaders for Truth, which is an egregious lie.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:18:06 2014 No.6460125 >>6460099 >Demanding the right answer or none at all of physicists is unfair It isn't when they are messing around with "nuclear" technology that could wipe out humanity if something went wrong. Look at Chernobyl.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:18:36 2014 No.6460126

>>6460109
This is a science board, not a philosophy board. We could go back and forth for days discussing what knowledge is and the objectivity of observation or lack thereof and all kinds of other meaningless shit, but it really does nothing for the sole act of progressing intellectual pursuits. They teach this stuff at the beginning any entry level science course, so I'd suggest starting there if you want to learn more
.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:23:06 2014 No.6460135

>>6460122
Science and physics is unavoidably fallacious until there is a unified theory of everything that is then confirmed completely. That does not make scientists sophists, theories are not disseminated with the intent to deceive, but with the intent to inform.

You demand perfect knowledge without the scientific method, which is impossible and childish.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:23:06 2014 No.6460136

>>6460102
I agree to some extent with you here. What happens deep down is that things accelerate other things, that's what we observe. But we can never hope to answer why they do it, how could we? The only way we can explain an observation is by invoking other more fundamental observations or a mathematical model, but we cannot explain the more fundamental observations nor can we explain the assumptions on which the mathematical model is based, so science can never answer why, it can only say how.

>>6460109
>you ought to stop claiming to have knowledge of the natural world
The knowledge of the natural world refers to the knowledge of how things behave, not why they behave. It is a knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:23:06 2014 No.6460137 >>6460122 >selfless crusaders for Truth Scientists attempt to make no claims about what is true, that's for philophers. Study something more before you attack it.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:27:06 2014 No.6460150

>>6460126
See, science has become so anti-intellectual: "don't question what any of these theories actually mean, that's for the philosophy geeks who never get material results. We are responsible for aeroplanes and electricity, so you don't need to question us. It's meaningless to ask what gravity is when decades of technological advancement has shown us that our theories of gravitation "work"."

This is awful. This is shameless sophistry, destructive contempt for rigorous thinking. The early scientists did not separate philosophy, I.e. thinking, from science. You physicists make fun of engineers for being too practical and not understanding the theories in any depth, but that's true of yourselves as well. You talk about gravity causing motion when you do not even have an understanding of what motion is. You talk about matter and time without even knowing what matter and time are. Indeed, according to many of you the vast, vast majority of all humankind is wrong in holding the intuitive concept that time is something that passes, and that time is actually just another dimension in a system of coordinates.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:33:36 2014 No.6460162

>>6460135
The scientific model seems to be faulty, considering how many superstitions it comes up with. For example, according to scientists a few centuries ago gravity was a force; it was quite recently that we find out that this was the superstitious thinking of a barbarous era. I wonder if in a hundred years the champions of the scientific method will look back at us Einsteinians as superstitious, and so on.
This is the scientific method: absolute truth cannot be known, so just make up any truth that allows you to awe the dumb public with marvellous technologies and call that the "truth" until you can find another "truth" that allows for even more marvellous technology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:34:36 2014 No.6460163 >>6460150 You are claiming things that are untrue. There are so many theories because we always ask why. Because we don't have that answer is not a reason to stop searching or stop sharing our wrong answers. How else will we find the right one?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:37:37 2014 No.6460175

>>6460150
This is a good example of fractal wrongness. You're misconceptions of science run too deep to really even find common ground on which I can reason with you. I highly encourage you to read up on the philosophy of science. You're failing to differentiate between a model and reality (which in the case of science is relative to our observation), and I think this is because you lack a fundamental understanding of both what a model is and the viewpoint science must take when dealing with what's real.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:41:06 2014 No.6460189

>>6460175
in case you're wondering what I mean by fractal wrongness and why it inhibits any real discussion.

"Fractal wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview. Debating a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one - kind of like a nested Gish Gallop, where each point both surrounds and is surrounded by an equally wrong argument."

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:50:06 2014 No.6460221

>>6460162
You are aware that before the scientific method all knowledge was actual superstition, also wrong?

The scientific method is actually this:

Identify a question.

Make a good guess as to the answer to that question.

Predict what that answer would mean.

Test that prediction.

Analyze the result of the test. Modify the guess using knowledge garnered from the test.

Repeat until the test does not contradict the hypothesis.

Share this new answer to this question so that it can be verifiable.

We know nothing, really, until we can answer any question without fail. What would you replace this method with to find truth? How should we gather knowledge?

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 20:53:06 2014 No.6460231

>>6460150
Science does not claim absolute truth, it is those who practice science who might be led to believe and who might lead others believe that it can bring absolute truth, but it cannot. All these people have led you to become frustrated, but be frustrated at them not at science itself. We make mathematical models, models which involve mathematical entities such as mass or spacetime. When we apply these models to what we observe we can make predictions about future observations, so these models are useful to us. Whether in those models you call an entity mass, zultronix or *$@?{{, it still makes the same predictions. The models say nothing about the entity itself, it is just a variable to which we can affect a value derived from observations, provided we want to apply the model to our observations.

Deep down all you can really know is that you exist, but if we stayed focused on that then we would be still living in caves.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 23:33:10 2014 No.6460463

>>6460162
I think your frustration comes from the fact that often, scientists and non-scientists will say things such as "object A moves because object B exerts a force on A". The core issue here is the use of the word "because" that implies a causality while there is none. "B exerts a force on A" is not the reason that A moves, it is a mathematical description of the fact that A moves. We cannot measure the force and then deduce how fast A moves, rather we measure how fast A moves and then we can quantify what was the force needed to make A move that way. Force is a mathematical tool, it is in no way an explanation. This is why physics problems given to students such as "a force of 5N is applied on an object of mass 3kg, deduce how fast it accelerates" are a joke, because in order to come up with that value of 5N you had to measure the acceleration of the object in the first place.

So many times the explanation that is given for an observed phenomenon is not an explanation, it is simply a rephrasing of the phenomenon inside the framework of the mathematical model used to describe it. Thus you have the illusion that they are coming up with an explanation (and the frustrating part is that often times so do they), while they are not explaining anything. The object does not move because a force is applied on it, nor because spacetime is curved, nor because it is inside an electromagnetic field, the object moves because other objects nearby make it move. "Force", "curvature of spacetime" and "electromagnetic field" do not answer why, they are a mathematical description.

Anonymous Fri Apr 4 23:35:10 2014 No.6460469

>>6460463
(cont)

The only times a true explanation is given for an observed phenomenon is when the phenomenon is explained as a consequence of other observations: the sun rises in the sky every 24 hours because the earth rotates on itself in 24 hours. If other observations are not available yet to provide an explanation, an hypothesis can be formulated: phenomena can be predicted from the hypothesis, and if we turn out to observe these phenomena then it makes the hypothesis all the more likely to be true.

Science is a beautiful endeavor, and you can appreciate it all the more as you learn to differentiate the true explanations from the mathematical descriptions. Which unfortunately can be very hard at first as most people don't even realize the distinction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 4 23:43:40 2014 No.6460482 >>6453397 Gravity is only a theory, silly.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 05:41:35 2014 No.6460889

>>6460221
> What would you replace this method with to find truth? How should we gather knowledge?
>truth
Stop being an edgy positivist. Science claim no truths. Religions and superstitions claim to have truth. Science only describes and explain phenomena.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 13:39:20 2014 No.6461373

>>6460889
I am not being edgy, you are denying our nature. Humans want to know, we don't wonder "what can I discover that is false, and is only an illusion?" It may be philosophically impossible to establish any real truth besides the fact that I, not anyone else, exist, but at some point we as human beings do believe what we experience is true and not an illusion. We can assume that scientific discovery helps us approach the truth about the universe because to not is to waste our time with meaningless illusion of no value.

Science has value and will lead to truth because I refuse to believe my existence is meaningless. You can think differently, but if you do then what are you doing? Kill yourself, nothing matters and everything is a lie.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 14:12:50 2014 No.6461431

>>6461373
>Science has value and will lead to truth because I refuse to believe my existence is meaningless
You refusing to believe your existence is meaningless does not imply that science will lead to truth. Science does not care what you believe, it is what it is.

>Kill yourself, nothing matters and everything is a lie.
Your existence being meaningless does not imply that you should kill yourself. There does not need to be a meaning to our existence for us to live. You can convince yourself that you can't live without meaning, but you can also accept to live without meaning. If you convince yourself that you can't live without meaning, and if you stop living in the illusion that your existence is meaningful, then you will kill yourself and remove yourself from the gene pool. Those who will remain are those who keep living in the illusion that their existence is meaningful, and those who realize that their existence is meaningless but who also realize that there is no reason they can't live without meaning.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 14:17:50 2014 No.6461442

>>6461431
Really think about yourself and tell me again your life has no meaning. Life has meaning for anyone who lives and science is a part of that.

Also, killing yourself is the only way to test if everything is actually an illusion or not. If it is, you should still exist since your actions are an illusion. If it isn't then you die and cease to exist.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 14:36:56 2014 No.6461491

>>6461442
>Really think about yourself and tell me again your life has no meaning
I know it does. I went through an existential crisis a few years ago, I couldn't fathom living a meaningless existence, but slowly I accepted it and realized that I could live without meaning. I have no more a reason to kill myself than not to kill myself, but I might as well enjoy the ride while it lasts.

>Life has meaning for anyone who lives
Things you do in your life have a temporary meaning. It is meaningful to go to school because it is supposed to allow you to get a job, which allows you to earn money, which enables you to do things you want to do, which allow you to feel happy, which itself is a meaningless quest. You can have goals in your life, but your existence itself is meaningless. At some point every living thing in the universe will have died. If you believe in a god then there might be an afterlife, you might be transported to another plane of existence but then what? You can occupy your mind doing things that seem to have a meaning, but the whole thing is meaningless.

>Also, killing yourself is the only way to test if everything is actually an illusion or not.
I wasn't referring to that kind of illusion, I was saying you have the illusion that your existence has a meaning. You can stop having that illusion without killing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 14:56:55 2014 No.6461510 File: 2.21 MB, 420x236, GRAVITY TREE SECUNZ.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6453397 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MksGlqj1YN0

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 15:06:55 2014 No.6461524

>>6461491
Caring at all about a job or a person or a field of study gives your life meaning. None of those things matter if your existence is meaningless. You believe your life has meaning, what you have described is contradictory and false.

The philosophical problem that we can only confirm our existence does not mean that our experiences are without a doubt an illusion, only that they may be. This question can't be answered, we can neither confirm nor disprove the statements "my experiences are real" or "my experiences are an illusion". We must then choose one and believe it, because to live while believing everything is an illusion is impossible. This is what suicide is, what depression is, why people kill themselves. They believe wholeheartedly that their life has no meaning.

What you are doing is choosing to believe your life has meaning and then lieing to yourself, saying but really its meaningless, as your personal way of answering an unanswerable question.

I am choosing to believe that my experiences are not an illusion, and therefore that truth can be found. Knowledge is, after all, truth by its very definition. Science is worth pursuing because life is worth living. If we first choose to believe our experiences are true, this can be explained by our evolutionary development. Life is worth living because a human that does not believe that dies.

I would also like to point out that you can believe what you do, only that I disagree and above is why. Your world view is unsatisfactory to me but to you it is apparently fine. I believe science can lead to truth and hope you understand my reasoning. Anyway, we may both be wrong because we can not answer the fundamental illusion question, so this kind of thing must be discussed with a willingness to disagree.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 15:52:25 2014 No.6461579

>>6461524
>Caring at all about a job or a person or a field of study gives your life meaning. None of those things matter if your existence is meaningless.
It does not give your life meaning, it gives to you as a person a meaning to do things inside your life. Life does not have a purpose, hence it is meaningless. I hope this is not turning into a semantics argument.

>You believe your life has meaning, what you have described is contradictory and false.
I do not, hence what I have described is not contradictory and false.

>We must then choose one and believe it, because to live while believing everything is an illusion is impossible. This is what suicide is, what depression is, why people kill themselves. They believe wholeheartedly that their life has no meaning.
I suggest you reread my post here >>6461431 because I specifically addressed that point. I believe life has no meaning, yet here I am. You cannot conceive how one can live a life that he knows to be meaningless, maybe you will one day. Also I'm not sure why you keep talking about illusions, it has no bearing on the meaninglessness of life. This meaninglessness comes from the fact that nothing has a purpose in the absolute sense, things you do allow you to reach some goals which allow you to reach some other goal, but if you look far enough the end goal has no purpose itself.

>What you are doing is choosing to believe your life has meaning and then lieing to yourself, saying but really its meaningless, as your personal way of answering an unanswerable question.
You assume that one cannot live a life he truly knows to be meaningless only because you couldn't. I know the things I do do not have a purpose in the end, I just live to enjoy life, which I know to be a meaningless endeavor. I have no reason not to kill myself, and I have no reason to kill myself, so I could go either way. I choose to live only because if I kill myself I lose that choice.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 15:58:25 2014 No.6461589

I am new(ish) to /sci/ and not a physicist, by any means and even I can tell that the Newtonian science-is-magic poster was either a troll or stupid... or both

HOWEVER, whatever his motivation or ignorance may have been, he has succeeded in derailing a thread about the nature of gravity into a philosophical discussion about the nature of truth. If you smartfags don't stop it, this shitfag will win.

DON'T LET /b/TARD THE IGNORANT WIN! Answer the OP's question in the best way you can. Assume that truth is out of reach. Accept that science may be wrong and just explain the current best theories about WHY gravity works.

I've heard some buzz about Higgs and other buzz about gravity waves. Start there. You may call me dumb if you like. I know my education is pathetically out of step with your own but that's part of what science is for, right?

Make me smarter and tell me how science THINKS gravity works.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:19:55 2014 No.6461616

>>6461524
>Science is worth pursuing because life is worth living
Nothing is worth pursuing in the absolute sense. We humans do things mostly because we enjoy doing them in some way. With science we can only describe how things we perceive behave. How could you access truth, when everything you are aware of was previously processed by your brain? You perceive colors and shapes in some way because your brain makes you perceive them that way. You can't see the world as it really is, if there is even such a thing.

One interesting thing, everything that we can see are things that emit electromagnetic waves (light). Then we can perceive things that do not emit electromagnetic waves (for instance dark matter) by the effect they have on other things that do emit electromagnetic waves. But then we cannot perceive in any way, with any instrument, things that do not emit electromagnetic waves and that do not interact with other things that do emit electromagnetic waves. We are limited to what we can perceive, how could you access truth then?

Any theory in science is based on things we can perceive in some way (with the aid of instruments or not). From these things we perceive we make assumptions which form the basis of a theory. In order to explain things, to say something that is true, we make a logical reasoning : "if such statement is true, then this is the logical consequence". What this means is that any truth is only true as long as the assumptions on which that truth is based are true themselves. In order to do logic you have to start from assumptions, from statements you consider to be true but that you can never prove to be true. Then logic itself is based on assumptions, logic is a set of rules we use all the time but you can't prove these are the rules that can allow you to reach the Truth. Then truth itself is only defined inside the framework of logic.

Really it's shit all the way down. You have hope, but the more you think the less hope there is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:21:55 2014 No.6461620 One thing is certain. Nothing exists without energy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:22:55 2014 No.6461621 >>6453397 entropy sqrt

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:25:55 2014 No.6461625 >>6461589 >just explain the current best theories about WHY gravity works Science cannot say why gravity works nigga, we just observe stuff attracts other stuff, then we make models to describe precisely how they attract each other, not why.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:28:25 2014 No.6461628

>>6461579
>>6461616

I have explained why I don't think your position is reasonable. We are getting nowhere.

>>6461589
This has been explained above, but here is what came of the OP's question:

The theory of relativity that encompasses Einstein's theories proposes that space and time are one object called space-time. Matter displaces space-time and bends it around objects. Gravity is a consequence of that curvature: when an object with momentum encounters another object with momentum the curvature in space-time alters the straight path those objects where following towards each other. Objects fall towards each other or attract each other because of the shape of space-time around objects with mass.

The force of gravity is not external, it is kinetic energy the object already has in the form of potential energy by virtue of momentum. There is no kinetic transfer from an "energy field" because according to relativity space-time has no mass and energy only travels through mass because mass is energy. E=MC2

Now, as was also pointed out, quantum mechanics is not compatible with relativity. Quantum mechanics cannot explain gravity yet, but hopefully research can bridge the gap between the two theories eventually. Discovery of Higgs boson answered some questions about photons and other elementary particles and gravity waves were predicted by relativity.

Short answer is relativity is the best we got but its also flawed.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:33:55 2014 No.6461634

>>6461628
>I have explained why I don't think your position is reasonable
You have explained why my position is unsatisfactory to you, not that it is unreasonable. I think however I have explained to you why your position is unreasonable, but you didn't seem to get much out of it.

>We are getting nowhere.
I agree with this at least

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:42:56 2014 No.6461644

>>6461634
Let me leave you with an analogy. You are a car, your life. The things that make up that car are parts, your experiences. You are saying that the parts are important, but not really, because the car is meaningless. The car is the whole point. Unless it never exists, along with the parts.

Both parts and car together must be either meaningful or meaningless because they are really the same thing in the end. Your position is unreasonable.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:50:55 2014 No.6461666

>>6461628
I will admit that asking "why" was unwise. Why borders on the philosophical. I will, therefore, revise my question to include the problem of quantum incompatibility.

What are the current, best theories that attempt to explain how matter bends space-time? I understand that would likely get rather messily into the actual nature of space-time but be honest, you're not on 4chan because you're busy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 16:55:25 2014 No.6461674 >>6461666 Damn. I can't even stand my own psudointellectualism. Please ignore the way the question was asked and just answer the question.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:34:31 2014 No.6461721

>>6461674
Um. Relativity says that space-time is displaced and bends around mass. So, its like something in water. It displaces the water and forces the water around the object. Only with space-time it curves. So when the moon orbits the earth it is following a path shaped by curved space-time around the earth, like a quarter rolling along the sides of a cone at the mall.

Does that answer your question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:37:30 2014 No.6461723 >>6461721 >like a quarter rolling along the sides of a cone at the mall Nope :) It's nothing like that at all XD

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:40:00 2014 No.6461725 >>6461723 Please enlighten me. This a dumbed down description of a three dimensional curve, so it wasn't meant to be completely accurate but if you can do better, by all means do.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:53:30 2014 No.6461734

>>6461725
It's because of the vanishing divergence of the stess-energy tensor
Or a simple variational principle given the Lagrangian <span class="math">mc \sqrt{ -g_{\mu \nu} \dot{x} ^\mu \dot{x} ^\nu}[/spoiler] :)
You can use other formulations too though ;)

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:55:00 2014 No.6461739

>>6461628
>Quantum mechanics cannot explain gravity yet,

But you can use QM to explain gravity. It's a probability amplitude.
Here's some matter > .
and here's it's probabaility (.)
matter is moving or existing in an uncertain space, however briefly, with inverse square distribution.

Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:56:30 2014 No.6461744

I have a related question.

I was reading about gravitational waves. This thread says that energy is mass and all that, but apparently gravitational radiation, a form of energy, can travel through space-time.

What? Does this mean the object that emits this radiation, like two black holes colliding, actually loses as much mass as there is gravitational radiation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 17:58:30 2014 No.6461748 >>6461739 >>6461734 These explanations were supposed to be for people who don't understand physics well. You are speaking Greek

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 18:00:30 2014 No.6461757 >>6461739 You are officially the smartest anon in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 18:02:30 2014 No.6461759 >>6461744 >gravitational waves can travel through spacetime nope :) gravitational waves are a disturbance of spacetime itself, they don't move through anything

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 18:17:32 2014 No.6461771 >>6461759 I meant that as an expression describing gravitational radiation moving through space-time. And really, I was right anyway. Seismic waves are the disturbance of earth. The disturbance behaves like a wave in either case. :) :) :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 5 18:20:31 2014 No.6461777 >>6461748 >You are speaking Greek Οχι, δεν μιλά Ελληνικά, μιλάω Ελληνικά

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 6 20:31:31 2014 No.6464030 File: 375 KB, 500x483, 1393269507922.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6453397 Jesus is the answer

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 20:50:31 2014 No.6464066
File: 36 KB, 225x350, Quattro_B_2368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6453397
Gravity is the result of your soul being weighed down by Earth's gravity earthnoid. Learn to free your soul and escape the confines of the Earth so that you may evolve into a superior newtype!

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 21:04:02 2014 No.6464104

>>6461644
>You are saying that the parts are important
No I'm not, the parts precisely are meaningless because the car itself is meaningless. Hence my position is not unreasonable. Really you haven't understood shit about what I've been telling you the whole time.

Every single thing you do will ultimately serve no purpose because given enough time the universe will remember none of it. If your ultimate purpose is to reach a hypothetical heaven, then once you reach it you will have no purpose, hence you won't have a meaning, hence your whole life consists in reaching meaningless goals.

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 21:17:31 2014 No.6464137

>>6461771
Seismic waves propagate through spacetime, gravitational waves do not ;)
There are Ricci-flat 4-manifolds with small perturbations from Minkowski space that don't fit easily into the "wave" or "not wave" categories we imagine in classical physics :)

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 23:35:40 2014 No.6464390

>>6464104
It is unreasonable to live without purpose. It is unreasonable to do anything without a reason. If you are not saying "experiences have meaning, but not really", what are you saying?

>Things you do in your life have a temporary meaning. It is meaningful to go to school because it is supposed to allow you to get a job, which allows you to earn money, which enables you to do things you want to do, which allow you to feel happy, which itself is a meaningless quest

Do things we do have "temporary" meaning or not? By the way, time does not matter. If I do one meaningful thing in all my life, my life had that purpose. My life was meaningful. You can't have it both ways.

If life is not meaningful at all, then it is logically unreasonable to live. To do anything requires a reason to do it. Being reasonable is by definition being in accordance with reason. Reason by definition is a statement or fact that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way. If life is meaningless, that reason is nothing. Therefore there is no reason to live.

Again, your position is unreasonable.

If it helps you accept your circumstances, think of existence as relatively as you can. Assuming you accept reality as real and not an illusion.

It is true that we are some of the smallest pieces of a universe so vast we can't even really comprehend how big it is. But why is earth less important than the milky way? Why is the milky way less important than the Virgo super cluster? Why is the Virgo super cluster less important than the observable universe? Why is the observable universe less important than the un-observable universe? And why is our universe less important than any others that might exist? I think the answer is that no part is less important than the whole. We will die. The earth will die. The sun will die. That does not mean it didn't exist, nor does it mean we didn't exist.
(cont reply, please read)

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 23:36:40 2014 No.6464392

>>6464390
What are we anyway? We are literally the remnants of dead stars. We are what is left of what was before, and we will make up what comes after us. We are the universe knowing itself and that makes us fucking special. Life is meaningful because we exist.

Anonymous Sun Apr 6 23:52:10 2014 No.6464412

>>6464390
>It is unreasonable to live without purpose. It is unreasonable to do anything without a reason. If you are not saying "experiences have meaning, but not really", what are you saying?
What he means is that experiences don't have INTRINSIC meaning or purpose. The only "meaning" in life is the one we ourselves define it to have.

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 6 23:59:42 2014 No.6464426 >>6464412 Well then, non-intrinsic meaning is still meaning. Semantics man. Life is not meaningless, I rest my case. Well, for those who choose to live, life is meaningful anyway.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 00:42:27 2014 No.6464485

>>6464137
Seismic waves propagate through the earth's crust.
Gravitational waves propagate through space-time and transfers gravitational radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

You're full of shit

:)
;)
;)
:)
8======================================D~~~~~

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:15:38 2014 No.6464940

>>6464390
Look what is your purpose, your goal in life? To get some sort of pleasure out of it right? To reach happiness? What is the purpose of being happy? There is none, you just want it instinctively. You might say being happy makes you live longer, but what's the point in living longer? Doing more things? What's the point in doing more things? Acquire more knowledge? What's the point in knowing more? Realize that every single thing you do that you think has a meaning has the purpose to reach a goal that is meaningless itself. Have kids, perpetuate your genetic material? What's the point, your kids will die anyway, and all of your descendants too. Contribute to the scientific and technological advancement of the human species? At some point we will reach a limit to what we can know and what we can do, then what? At that point it would become clearer for you that existence is meaningless, because we will know all we can possibly know, there won't be any unknown land or fact to discover. Then every single piece of life in the universe will die, atoms will decay and everything gone. There will be nothing left to remember what ever happened before. The end.

You live in the illusion that things you do have a meaning because you don't look and think far enough. Just like if you don't look and think far enough you come to believe that god created you in his image and that kind of bullshit.

>If life is not meaningful at all, then it is logically unreasonable to live
As I already explained it to you, but you just won't listen, in the absolute there is no reason to live and there is no reason to die. Your failure to comprehend what I say does not make my position unreasonable. Whatever reason you come up for living will be based on your own postulates. "Being happy is a reason to live"? Why? It is only a reason because you postulate it to be.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:27:43 2014 No.6464952

>>6464940
Read my last comments again. By the very definition of the word, your position is unreasonable. I understand you perfectly, and your position is impossible.

As this anon pointed out >>6464412

You are arguing semantics and as I said here >>6464426

You are still holding an impossible position.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:33:43 2014 No.6464956

>>6464940
It is ironic that you called anyone edgy. Listen to yourself. You are unimportant because you will die? Everything, the whole universe, will die. Relatively speaking everything is as important as everything else, equal in death and existence. You have no basis for the leap in logic from "I will die" to "I am unimportant" from which you base your opinion that life is meaningless upon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:37:13 2014 No.6464959 >>6464940 Also, being happy is not the reason to live. >>6464392 Existing is, as I've said.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:38:43 2014 No.6464960

>>6464952
>By the very definition of the word, your position is unreasonable
No it is not, because there is no reason to live AND there is no reason to die. Hence it is not unreasonable that I am still here talking to you. If there is no reason to die, why should I kill myself? If there is no reason to live, why should I keep on living? There is no reason either way. For now, I'm here.

>>6464956
>It is ironic that you called anyone edgy.
I never called anyone edge in this thread.

>You are unimportant because you will die?
I haven't spoken about importance in this thread, I have been speaking about meaning and purpose.

> You have no basis for the leap in logic from "I will die" to "I am unimportant"
see above

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:39:43 2014 No.6464961 >>6464959 >Also, being happy is not the reason to live Then tell me, what is the reason to live, or what is your reason to live?

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:49:30 2014 No.6464967

>>6464960
If the reason to live is nothing, then living is unreasonable by the definition of the word reasonable. Seriously, look up the word reasonable. You are actually argueing there is no intrinsic meaning to life, but non-intrinsic meaning is still meaning, which makes life meaningful. By your own ommision you believe we create meaning in our lives.

>Things you do in your life have a temporary meaning. It is meaningful to go to school because it is supposed to allow you to get a job, which allows you to earn money, which enables you to do things you want to do

You said life had meaning here whether you choose to accept it or not.

>>6460889
Was that not you calling someone edgy?

>>6464961
Did you miss the part where I said existence is the reason for living?

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 10:57:00 2014 No.6464975

>>6464967
>then living is unreasonable by the definition of the word reasonable
But dying is as unreasonable, so why would it be unreasonable that I am still alive? You are arguing that if it is unreasonable to live then I should kill myself, and since I haven't done it then my position is unreasonable. Non sequitur.

>but non-intrinsic meaning is still meaning, which makes life meaningful
The meaning you define yourself is not meaning. Because by that logic I can define all my statements to be true and then it follows that all your statements in which you claim I am wrong are false. See the problem?

>You said life had meaning here whether you choose to accept it or not.
The temporary meaning I was referring to here was the meaning you define yourself. Things that have a meaning in your mind because you haven't realized that they do not have one.

>Was that not you calling someone edgy?
Nope, I only came in the discussion here >>6461431

>Did you miss the part where I said existence is the reason for living?
Indeed I did. Now prove it, why is existence the reason for living?

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 11:10:30 2014 No.6464980

>>6464975
Dying is not actually as unreasonable as living without meaning. As we have finally established existing is the reason we live. If, however, we do not accept reality as real, life is meaningless because it does not exist. The reasonable thing to do then is to try to kill oneself so as to test the illusion an/or escape it.

I have argued that the intrinsic meaning of life is existence itself. You argued otherwise, and I pointed out that you were contradicting yourself because any meaning in life was also sufficient to bring life meaning. Existence encompasses all this anyway.

I have already laid out my argument here.
>>6464390
>>6464392

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 11:26:30 2014 No.6464999

>>6464980
>Dying is not actually as unreasonable as living without meaning
Why? A lack of reason to live is not a reason to stop living. You assume we can only do things we have a reason to.

>As we have finally established existing is the reason we live
No we haven't, you have claimed so without proving it.

>I pointed out that you were contradicting yourself because any meaning in life was also sufficient to bring life meaning
The only meanings you have are those you define yourself, which are not real meanings. Just because I define superman to be real does not mean that he is. You keep saying that my position is unreasonable and that I am contradicting myself, but you never give valid reasons why.

>I have already laid out my argument here.
I don't see an argument as to why existence is the reason for living. You claim the statement "existence is the reason for living" is true. Why is this statement true? You claim "Life is meaningful because we exist", why is that statement true? Things that you postulate to be true are not true in the absolute, they are only true to you.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 11:37:00 2014 No.6465011

>>6464999

>You assume we can only do things we have a reason to

That is the definition of reasonable.

Relatively speaking everything that exists is not any more important than anything else. You are as important as the whole universe because you are part of the universe. The universe is important, has value, is meaningful because it exists. As opposed to what does not exist, which has no meaning, no value, no importance.

Again this depends on whether you accept reality as real. Existence and reality are only meaningless if they don't exist. As I've said before, one must either accept reality or believe it to be an illusion. If it is an illusion it is meaningless and the only reasonable thing to do is try to escape the illusion.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 12:27:02 2014 No.6465076

>>6465011
You do not prove anything, you just reiterate your assumptions. To you, something that exists is automatically important, has value and is meaningful. There is no point then in arguing with you about the meaninglessness of existence, because you assume that to exist is to be meaningful. We shouldn't have been using the word "meaning" in the first place really.

Existence does not have a purpose. In the absolute there is no reason to exist, and there is no reason to not exist, because any reason you come up for existing or not existing will be based on a statement that you postulate to be true, i.e. that you cannot prove to be true. I don't know how to put it differently.

Besides you cannot assume that we need to have a reason in order to live, because that is wrong. A "reason" is a human construct, insects have no idea what "reason" is yet they live. Or if you say that humans cannot live without a reason to, then you are making an assumption once again, which you have not and cannot prove.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 12:35:00 2014 No.6465091 >gravitational energy >not ITT

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 13:45:10 2014 No.6465195

>>6453397
> Where does that potential energy come from? There is no kinetic transfer between the two objects

According to particle physics the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are mediated by force carrying particles.

Some theories say the same of gravity. According to some people the rocks will be exchanging "gravitons".

This is all conjecture at the moment though. Gravity still eludes us even moreso than the other fundamental forces

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 14:07:40 2014 No.6465227

>>6465076
Assuming that the universe has no value is also an assumption. As I said before, because the illusion question can't be answered an assumption has to be made in the first place. I have been clear about this.

>In the absolute there is no reason to exist

But you do exist. If there was no reason to exist you wouldn't exist. The question is "what is the reason for existence?" The way you are using the word "reason" it is a statement offered in explanation or justification. If the explanation for existence is nothing, existence would be nothing. Since existence is something, the universe, there is a reason to exist.

Only if you think existence is fake can you claim that there is no reason to exist. In that case existence is a lie, it is nothing.

You cannot claim reality is not an illusion and also that there is no reason for existence.

The reason for existing, living, is the same for all things in the universe. Life is no different from other matter and energy and space-time. The reason, existence itself, is not dependent on anything knowing it exists, because it exists all the same.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 14:26:40 2014 No.6465257 >>6460162 /sci seems to have issues recognizing trolls or simple people. This person over here, is one of them. For so many, so obvious reasons I'd feel like an idiot if I actually explained this to you any further. So just ignore him? Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 14:58:10 2014 No.6465284 >>6465257 He was fed and left like two days ago.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 15:23:40 2014 No.6465302 File: 33 KB, 600x356, 1396898603201.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] the higgs boson. that is all.

Anonymous Mon Apr 7 15:51:47 2014 No.6465337

>>6453397
The potential energy is the amount of energy it takes to move the object from the gravity well out of it. The object, before gaining any kinetic energy was 100% potential energy relative to object one. Every object outside of orbit of Earth technically has 100% potential energy relative to earth

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 16:29:16 2014 No.6465379 >>6465302 the higgs boson doesn't exist lurk more

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 20:44:31 2014 No.6465829 >>6465379 So what was all that shit at CERN then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 21:01:32 2014 No.6465854 >>6453417 >Le Sage MY SIDES HAVE NOW ACQUIRED GRAVITY POTENTIAL AND SHIT IS ORBITING THEM

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 7 21:03:01 2014 No.6465856 >>6461777 Αυτά που λες είναι μαλακίες του γκοογκλ μεταφραστή ρε μαλάκα, μην το παίζεις έξυπνος.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 10:20:25 2014 No.6466701 dingus

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 17:59:42 2014 No.6467427 >>6460125 lol kill urself

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:00:12 2014 No.6467429 >>6460125 Do not confuse "engineers" with "physicists."

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:13:47 2014 No.6467464 >>6467429 Do not confuse engineers with scientists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:14:17 2014 No.6467466 >>6465227 this convo is 2deep4me

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:16:17 2014 No.6467469 >>6467429 >>6467464 lol, shots fired!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:17:18 2014 No.6467474 >>6467469 I'm pretty sure those two are on the same side.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 8 18:22:17 2014 No.6467482 >>6467474 As long as anon 29 isn't implying that engineers are scientists, yes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 01:43:27 2014 No.6468239 >>6467482 Do engineers want to be considered scientists?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 01:47:57 2014 No.6468245 >>6467429 Do not confuse engineers with technicians

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 01:56:27 2014 No.6468260 >>6468239 No, they want to suck scientists' dicks. >>6468245 The only difference is that the engineer must suck the mathematicians' cocks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 14:34:27 2014 No.6469046 >>6468260 Are you an Andrologist?

Anonymous Wed Apr 9 15:09:13 2014 No.6469115

The problem is that Space-Time is just a model, a reductionist representation, and not something universally true and real. It is representing some aspect of reality, just as a map does. But a map is not the thing it represents. The question is; Does a volume of space have any properties if the space is unoccupied by energy or matter?

The provable answer is no. But if you believe Einstein, it has imaginary properties which can interact with matter and energy and conform them to it's properties and dimensions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 22:20:10 2014 No.6469915 >>6469115 Your problem with space-time is also true of all human knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 22:32:10 2014 No.6469947 >>6469915 Not really. That's why we use empircism in science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 9 22:45:57 2014 No.6469975 >>6469947 Yes really. Empiricism is dependent on experience being real. Experience may not be true and real because our senses are fallible. Epistemological arguments go nowhere in my experience though. This thread is a good example of that actually.

Anonymous Thu Apr 10 12:26:24 2014 No.6470820

because it exists in a spacetime. here we have position, distance, space, and passing time, and they're all made of the same quantum goo. add particles to that and it becomes a spicy mix that we chose to call gravity, a deviation of our quantum goo that we chose to call reality.

imagine our universe like a little pocket where particles can go on an amazing gravity ride. the more particles in one place, the more the pocket gets deformed in funny ways, and the ride gets more intense for those amassed particles. that pocket is the spacetime. and there's reason to hypothesize that many different spacetimes exist, and in each pocket, gravity and all other laws of nature should have their own set of properties depending on what variation the space pocket is. maybe spacetimes are like animals with many different species.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 10 12:46:54 2014 No.6470839 File: 3 KB, 222x117, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6470820 Please... your rambling is making me hungry.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 10 15:51:05 2014 No.6471071 >>6470820 People like you are why String Theory isn't taken seriously

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 10 22:41:59 2014 No.6471698 >>6455662 >/sci/ in charge of shitting on Special Relativity

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 11 00:27:33 2014 No.6471826 >>6471698 That guy is so fucking retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 11 00:33:33 2014 No.6471830 File: 81 KB, 530x820, 1324092814333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism I'll just leave this right here...

Anonymous Fri Apr 11 03:47:31 2014 No.6472010

Fuck you guys. I was just browsing /sci/ and I see this thread, I figure it'd be interesting to see what people thing. But as soon as I clicked reply my whole fucking room started to reek of weed, REEK OF IT. NOW I CAN'T EVEN GET THE SMELL OUT OF MY CLOTHES. I'M JUST WAITING FOR MY PARENTS TO WAKE UP AND CALL ME A JUNKIE FOR THIS. FUCK YOU /SCI/ AND FUCK YOUR THEORIES.

Anonymous Fri Apr 11 11:16:30 2014 No.6472433

>>6471830
This is interesting as fuck. You have to subscribe to read the rest, but I just googled GEM theory instead. So, does this theory treat gravity and relativity as a consequence of the interactions between particles that make up matter and particles that make up spacetime? I'm not sure if this disproves relativity or marries it to quantum mechanics.

Anonymous Fri Apr 11 16:01:47 2014 No.6472804
File: 203 KB, 960x960, 1386944883203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6472433
> So, does this theory treat gravity and relativity as a consequence of the interactions between particles that make up matter and particles that make up spacetime?
Something like that, while I'm not sure if particle is very accurate QM is pretty intimate (partially since that's an umbrella for 'wth physics')

He wrote a book on it, here;
https://www.mediafire.com/?m0w4myf0xvcxf10

tl;dr goes something like this;
http://montalk.net/notes/the-etheric-origins-of-gravity-electricity-and-magnetism

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math