/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 46 KB, 800x533, gettyimages-185010849-800x533.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:50:34 2018 No.9580808 [Reply] [Original]

Why does light move at the speed that it does?
>c = 299792458 m / s
Im not asking how we define a meter or a second.
But with our definitions of the units, why doesnt it move 200000000m/s, or 300000000m/s?
What physical thing in the universe sets the speed of light to the rate that it is, what limits it from being faster or slower?
WHY 2.99*10^8m/s and not faster or slower?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 16:54:02 2018 No.9580818 >>9580808 no one but a few highly intelligent sci posters know why, whomst might tell you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:06:00 2018 No.9580836 >>9580808 because that's the fastest rate at which things can load without lag in this simulation.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:09:29 2018 No.9580843

>>9580808
Light moves at that speed because photons are massless and all massless particles can only move at that speed, you could call it the speed of information or the speed of causality for our universe.
Why is it exactly that speed, i don't know, but it couldn't be infinite or we couldn't exist and also it couldn't be very much slower for the same reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:09:30 2018 No.9580844 >>9580836 Ok you just made me believe in the simulation theory I mean what else could it be?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:11:39 2018 No.9580848 >>9580844 simulation theory is bullshit universe contains too much information, and due to entropy that information is always increasing, that would never happen in a simulation with limited computer resources

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:16:02 2018 No.9580860

>>9580843
>Why is it exactly that speed, i don't know
Thats the question i was asking. Are there any theories on this, does anyone even care?
Surely there must be some actual thing/property in the universe that sets the maximum speed to this exact one.
>but it couldn't be infinite or we couldn't exist and also it couldn't be very much slower
So could it be a trial/error kind of thing? The big bang has happened a countless amount of times, and the speed of light has been different with every big bang iteration, and the speed of light is this specific spead because all other speeds would fail to create humans?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:19:52 2018 No.9580870 >>9580860 you could ask the same thing about countless constants, why they have the values they do there's no real answer, the anthropic principle is more like an excuse not a real answer

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:31:01 2018 No.9580896 >>9580870 The anthropic principle isn't an excuse; it's a pretty simple and elegant logical statement: I exist therefore the laws of nature allow it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:34:10 2018 No.9580902 >>9580896 sure, but still would be nicer if we could derive the constants from some underlying theory instead of that philosophical cop out

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:35:09 2018 No.9580905
File: 45 KB, 697x389, electroVShydro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9580860
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

source:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics
page 7

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:38:03 2018 No.9580914 >>9580844 >ask super open ended philosophical question >one vague, unsupported answer is proposed to you >ok I believe everything you say, how could any other answer possibly be valid???? god I hate this board.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:38:24 2018 No.9580915

"Photons are not moving at all. They are states of a Quantum field that has modes that move at the speed of light in vacuum. The photons themselves only exist where they are being measured. These modes do not define valid coordinate systems so one cant transform in and out of them" - some comment on stack exchange that might make sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:40:48 2018 No.9580923 >>9580844 Uncertainty and quantum mechanics in general is just a result of poor resolution at those scales.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:41:35 2018 No.9580925

>>9580843
>you could call it the speed of information or the speed of causality for our universe.
wrong.
the speed of information is instantaneous.

and light travels at the speed it does because its a relative thing. photons for us only exist because the wavelength of a certain band of electromagnetic radiation is close enough the the overall vibrational frequency of the matter that makes up not only us, or earth but our solar system. Hawking radiation is an example if this, it actually travels to fast for us to even observe(well with any degree of certainty anyway)
>>9580808
>WHY 2.99*10^8m/s and not faster or slower?
has to do with both the medium of space and the flow of time. think about it really hard for a bit. What really is time?
its the flow of energy, and what is light? It is energy

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:44:54 2018 No.9580931 >>9580914 >ironically believing the simulation theory =/= believing the simulation theory also im a physicslet

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:47:12 2018 No.9580935 >>9580925 >the speed of information is instantaneous no, it's not

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:57:41 2018 No.9580956 >>9580935 mabye not in conventional science but the information transfer when two particles have experienced quantum entanglement is instantaneous over any distance. Information is generally carried in light/energy, but it is not information itself.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 17:58:08 2018 No.9580958

>>9580808
>>9580860

Funny enough, the speed of light is actually a defined quantity. The reason it was DEFINED to be 299792458 m / s is because its convenient for our historical system of measurements.

As for WHY it's a defined quantity, the answer is because it is a constant, and not measured to some absolute background coordinate system. In fact, when working on special relativity problems, it's convenient to set c=1.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:07:37 2018 No.9580982 >>9580956 there's no true information transfer in entanglement, the pair of particles is described by a single system and two people can see that single system of particles however far apart they wish to be, but there's no actual information transfer

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:09:32 2018 No.9580989
File: 54 KB, 720x720, 1517729326715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9580808
your question dosnt make sense senpai. EM wave velocities were measured and found to be invariant of frame , so they move at the invariant velocity c.
you cant ask why that is so because that assumes there's a reason and we dont know if there is.

is your question basically
>whats the next level of reductionism about the speed of light ?
?
because reductionism is about explaining shit with simpler and more fundamental shit and the lorentz transform is as simple and fundamental as we can get now.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:14:23 2018 No.9580998

>>9580925
>time is the flow of energy
Strange statement. Just because flow of energy only occurs when time flows does not imply that time is equal to energy flow. I may as well state that time = perception since perceptions cannot happen without time. In fact, it is hard to imagine a single phenomenon that exists without time that is not space, therefore you could equate any phenomenon that is not space with time and get away with it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:17:59 2018 No.9581003

>>9580989
>you cant ask why that is so because that assumes there's a reason and we dont know if there is.
Surely some property of the universe is what sets the speed of light.

Note that im not asking about definitions of units "the speed of light is 3*10^8m/s because thats from how we define meters and seconds" isnt the answer im looking for.
Assume we define 1 second as the time it takes for an average person to blink 3 times, and 1 meter as the distance between the arms of a 5 year old.

Then the speed of light measured in m/s would be approximately 3*10^8m/s. Im asking what actual property of the universe limits the speed of light to this.
"Its that speed because thats how we measure it" isnt an answer. Why isnt it faster or slower? What thing in the universe determines the speed of it? Regardless of in what units we humans measure it - it will still have the same speed. And why does it have this speed?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:25:15 2018 No.9581012

>>9580998
>Just because flow of energy only occurs when time flows does not imply that time is equal to energy flow.
no, but we measure time as the flow of energy, or more so the rate of flow relative to another body, that body being the sun. its the only way to measure time because time is the flow of energy. energy is the force that produces time/motion/change

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:26:14 2018 No.9581016 >>9581003 >Surely thing you cant possibly be sure of yea senpai light has this speed because it has no mass , so by the laws of mechanics it cant have a rest frame . the more interesting question is why the invarient speed is the invarient speed

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:32:31 2018 No.9581026

>>9581016
>>Surely *thing you cant possibly be sure of*
>yea senpai
what else? i think its a very fair assumption to make. Or are you saying the laws of the universe arent what determines the speed of light? How does that make sense.
physical constants must be the result of a property of the universe.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:33:49 2018 No.9581027

>>9581003
>"Its that speed because thats how we measure it" isnt an answer

That's not what >>9580958 and >>9580989 are saying.

The speed of light isn't defined by meters and seconds, meters are and seconds are defined by the speed of light. The distinction is subtle but therein lies the answer to your question. The reason it's defined, NOT measured, as 299792458 m / s is so everyone didn't have to start using a difference system of measurements. Prior to the meter being defined by the speed of light, it was defined as 1/40,000,000 of the the Earths meridian. The current number of 299792458 m / s was CHOSEN so that the meter, as defined by the speed of light, was the same as the meter as defined by the Earth's meridian.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to ask "Why is the speed of light not faster or slower?" Because it would STILL be a constant, and any units we derive from it are arbitrarily chosen

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:33:59 2018 No.9581028
File: 64 KB, 425x277, sgu042310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9581003
>Then the speed of light measured in m/s would be approximately 3*10^8m/s. Im asking what actual property of the universe limits the speed of light to this.

The medium of aether.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:40:41 2018 No.9581040

>>9581027
It doesnt fucking matter how the speed of light is defined. The speed of light is a constant no matter how the fuck you define it. And why is the constant (by whatever definition you want to use) that specific constant for that specific definition is what im asking.

There are 2 points in space A and B. The distance between them is constant over any time frame. Define a time unit T however you want.
T can be the average time it takes for someone to blink 3 times, T can be the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 meter. T can be the time it takes for a normal person to sneeze.

Regardless of how you define T, the time T it takes for light to travel from A to B will be constant, and it will be a specific constant depending on how you define T. But WHY is it this specific constant?

How am i not getting my point across? Am i retarded?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:46:08 2018 No.9581058

I'm kinda confused as to how, "Why is it that speed?" would generate any other sort of response.

I mean, if someone asks "Why is the speed limit on the highway 55mph?" - "Because the sign says so!" or "25+30 = 55" or "Cuz miles are arbitrary!", aren't legitimate answers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:48:53 2018 No.9581065 >>9580956 information isn't transferred in entanglement. you're misunderstanding what it means for two particles to be quantumly entangled.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:49:47 2018 No.9581068 >>9581058 Space is not empty. All waves require a medium to propagate and aether is that medium. Aether can be described as a subatomic plasma. This also means faster-than-light travel is possible with the right propulsion methodology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:52:37 2018 No.9581072 >>9581026 >assumption yea thats exactly what it is >physical constants must be the result of a property of the universe. physical constants are a property of the universe.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:52:56 2018 No.9581073

>>9581058
Because there must be some reason for it being that speed. A reason with roots in the laws of the universe.

People are just saying "The speed is that speed because thats the way it is". But there must be a REASON it is the way it is

Look at this more precise question:

The time it takes for light to travel between A and B is T.
Assume A and B are in a vacuum
Why does it take T amount of time and not something else?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:56:59 2018 No.9581080 >>9581072 >physical constants are a property of the universe. So you dont believe they originate from anything, that they cant be explained by a set of logical rules?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:57:57 2018 No.9581082 >>9580808 Are you serious. There is a max speed. There just is. You can call it c. Why is c = 2.99e8. Because we made the length of a meter arbitrarily and the math just works out that way.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 18:59:08 2018 No.9581084

>>9580848
Heres the thing, all the information the universe contains isnt observable. The key part to any simulation is just rendering the relevant data, and making up the rest as needed. When you play a video game, the entire universe isnt renders, just whats in front of you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:02:58 2018 No.9581090

>>9581040
>But WHY is it this specific constant?

The speed of light, c, DOESN'T have a specific value, which may be hard to grasp. This is why it doesn't make sense to ask,"Why doesn't c have a specific higher or lower value", because it doesn't have a specific value in the first place. All the matters is the recognition that is a constant.

And the reason we can arbitrarily attach a value to c is BECAUSE there is no specific value.

>Why does it take T amount of time and not something else?

It is literally because our units of time and distance are derived from the ARBITRARY constant, c

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:03:34 2018 No.9581094

there isn't anything that the speed of light is defined by

you might think of the electric/magnetic constants, but this isn't accurate
[math]\mu_0[/math] is defined by the value such that when [math]\displaystyle \frac {F}
{\Delta L} = \frac {\mu_0I_1I_2} {2r\pi}[/math]=2*10^-7 when I1 & I2 are 1 amp. but wait, that's also the definition for an amp: it's circular. so the value of [math]\mu_0[/math] isn't exactly dependent on the definition of an amp. in a way it is, the 2*10^-7 from [math]\mu_0[/math]=4pi*10^-7 comes from the definition of current

however this tells us nothing since the entire formula is based off the biot-savart law, which is experimentally derived. maxwells laws were shaped around those as well, literally just summing all the observations together (amperes circuital law was incomplete until maxwell combined two different observations together)
this is important because many people assume those laws to be fundamental and grounded, when in reality they have a potential for having missing terms or simply being incorrect. it's unlikely, but still possible

now you might be wondering why the hell c has anything to do with the magnetic/electric constants and this is because we strategically defined a magnetic field, B, as a way to account for the fact that the "appeared" charge will be closer due to the charges movements, as there will be a contraction of length [math]\Delta d \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}[/math]. this gives a new "force" which pulls it in a different direction based on its velocity. this is where qv x B comes from. there's only one force and that's coulombs force, B is just a way to explain it
because of this you see an extra c term in our other equations (try testing with F=q(E+v x B)), which makes the magnetic constant exactly 4pi*10^-7, independent of any laws and only dependent on the definition of current (which is dependent on c)
the same can be said about the electric constant, meaning c is more fundamental than either of those.
(1/2)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:11:36 2018 No.9581105 >>9581080 i dont know if they originate or can be explained and neither does anyone else .

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:12:55 2018 No.9581108

>>9581090
Motherfuck. Are you dense or do i suck at making myself clear?

There is a limit to the speed regardless of what units you want to define it in.

Redefine a meter as the distance between the average 5 year olds' arms. Redefine a second as the time it takes for an average person to blink 3 times.

With there REDEFINED units, c ~3*10^8m/s.
WHY isnt it 3*10^5m/s?

Is the speed of light (regardess of what fucking units you want to use) the result of a physical law?
How can it not be? And what is that law?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:14:07 2018 No.9581110 >>9581105 Ok thats the answer i was looking for

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:23:11 2018 No.9581123

>>9581094
to clarify on
>this is because we strategically defined a magnetic field, B, as a way to account for the fact that the "appeared" charge will be closer due to the charges movements
i mean that when you move a charge, there will be an appeared charge at a different distance because of lorentz contractions
as time goes on it gets pushed around from this force, in reality it's just the coulombs force but with special relativity

you'll find that a lot of these units are strategically defined, coulomb on current, current on experimentally derived data (it used to be different before biot-savart), and everything else from there
the definition of a meter is based ENTIRELY on the fact that the speed of light is a fundamental constant which never changes. before this, accuracy would be god awful because we based meter off of the earths meridian, which changes over time for one and secondly to get that number we'd use equations using other "fundamental" constants
this way, meters are constant and easier to measure
can't really say the same thing about weight units, however
>well how did they get 299792458 if meter wasn't defined that well yet
because the definition of meter at the time gave around that much (+/- 1 or so), and to avoid creating a new standard that no one will adapt to, they made the new definition very close to the old

but to answer your main question, c is entirely fundamental, there is no equation that just gives c that we know of, so we just use what we've experimentally shown
why isn't it higher? why isn't it lower? why isn't it half the speed it is? the answer anyone will ever give you is: i don't know

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:24:13 2018 No.9581126 >>9581123 this was (2/2) btw (3/2)

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:28:46 2018 No.9581140

>>9580808
Which came first? The unit of speed or the discovery of the speed of light.

The reason why the speed of light doesn't change (in a vacuum,) is because the rate at which time passes would also change. What this means is that the speed of light is always preserved from an internal reference frame.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 19:31:19 2018 No.9581148 >>9580923 No. The tests of Bell's inequalities show that you are wrong. The experimental evidence is simply incompatible with a model of local hidden variables.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:31:59 2018 No.9581152

>>9581108
I'm starting to think you are a bit fucking dense. If everything(and I'm not talking about our units of measurement/time here) moves in a way fundamentally proportional to the constant c, then it doesn't fucking matter what arbitrary value is ascribe to the constant. To illustrate, consider this:

Suppose that you are some magical observer who can separate yourself from the physical universe you are observing. Now suppose that the speed of light, as measured by secondary observers INSIDE the universe, suddenly changes. Now what would you, as the magical observer see? You would see EVERYTHING in the universe moving faster or slower, but would the secondary observers inside the universe see?
They would notice no change and would still measure the speed of light as having the same value as before, because every secondary observer is FUNDAMENTALLY part of the universe and so their perceptions of distance and time would change along with the changing(as observed by you, the magical observer) speed of light. So it doesn't make any fucking sense to ask why it isn't higher or lower because we would never be able to detect it. All that fucking matters is that to every secondary observer INSIDE the universe, c is constant.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 19:33:34 2018 No.9581155 >>9581073 >Because there must be some reason for it being that speed. A reason with roots in the laws of the universe. There does not need to be a reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:35:32 2018 No.9581158 >>9581108 Limit? Limiting how? Why don't you just Google it? "Speed just is. In natural units it is a value of 1. The reason the speed of light (or of any massless thing) seems to be something specific is its relationship to other things"

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 19:38:29 2018 No.9581165 >>9580808 >Why does light move at the speed that it does? No one currently knows. It's like asking "how do magnets work?". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 >>9580989 This guy gets it.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:43:50 2018 No.9581175

>>9581152
Or to use another analogy:

If you are watching a movie at 60fps, everything that's happening on screen happens relative to that rate. If you fast forward the movie, all the action on screen moves faster proportionally. To a magically self-aware character in the movie, they wouldn't be able to tell if the movie was being fast forwarded or not. All they could know, and all that would matter for any practical purpose, is that everything that happens according to what they would perceive as a fundamental constant of their universe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:47:45 2018 No.9581180 >>9580896 It's logical, sure. But it's not an explanation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:49:21 2018 No.9581183 >>9581073 >But there must be a REASON it is the way it is You seem very sure of this. Do you have a good reason to believe this (that things must have a reason to be the way they are)?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:50:29 2018 No.9581184

>>9580808
If you are bothered for why the constant doesn't have a more elegant number, its because of how we define the meter. It's just an arbitrary scale that we made up.

There are physicists that do their calculations based off of setting c = 1 and setting up everything from there.

It's arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:50:53 2018 No.9581185 >>9580989 Why's the fine structure constant what it is and what does it have to do with flipping burgers Thanks in advance

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:55:31 2018 No.9581194

>>9581184
He's not talking about the numeric value of the constant, he's asking why the speed isn't faster or slower.
It's like asking why a particular car's top speed isn't faster or slower, regardless of what numbers are showing on the speedometer
some of you people are so dense

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 19:56:41 2018 No.9581198

>>9581184
>If you are bothered for why the constant doesn't have a more elegant number
Im not, which i have stated probably 7 times
>>9581183
If everything that exists exists within the universe, then everything in it must follow the laws of the universe. What is the universe other than a set of laws? And isnt it fair to say that these law manifest in the form of space, and time and other stuff, including all physical constants. The constants must be derived from the set of laws i.e the universe.
How else would they come about?
>>9581194
This

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:03:36 2018 No.9581207 >Run both your fields perpendicular to each other >Get c >Line both fields up >Get c*(2/pi) Hmmmmmmmmm... I wonder what a wave is....

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:05:35 2018 No.9581210

>>9581194
>He's not talking about the numeric value of the constant, he's asking why the speed isn't faster or slower
We know, and we're telling him why it doesn't make sense to ask that.
>It's like asking why a particular car's top speed isn't faster or slower, regardless of what numbers are showing on the speedometer
No, it's not like that at all.

The speed of light is really the speed of causality. To us, or any observer in our universe, it will always be constant. THERE IS NO HIGHER OR LOWER VALUE for the speed of light. See >>9581175 for a good analogy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:07:26 2018 No.9581216 >>9581210 >THERE IS NO HIGHER OR LOWER VALUE for the speed of light You don't know that. Light slows down and speeds up all the time.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:15:20 2018 No.9581234

>>9581210
You mean our perception if time would speed up/down according to changes in the speed of light, making it seem its still the same constant?
Why would time perception have ties to c? Chemical reactions are indifferent to c, right?
And what about time perception underwater. c_water>c but time perception is the same

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:16:24 2018 No.9581236 >>9581234 i meant c_water<c

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:26:35 2018 No.9581265

It's all bullshit. The speed of light exactly proves light is moving through a medium because the speed is limited on Earth.

It's the same properties for making waves in a puddle of water versus a puddle of curdled milk.

These fucking stupid ideas of causality and time bending once that speed is reached is all just fucking nonsense.
But of course someone will just come here and post Wikipedia articles about satellites and atomic clocks or something.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 20:29:37 2018 No.9581269 >>9581265 >But of course someone will just come here and post Wikipedia articles about satellites and atomic clocks or something. It's hard to argue with solid evidence, i.e. the vital use of general relativity in GPS.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:39:40 2018 No.9581298

>>9581269
Yeah, real to argue against that when NASA's layered greenscreen feed cuts out so you can't see the Earth.

Real hard to argue with the idea that two different reference frames can even be measured correctly. Lucky light is always constant! Except when it's in an atomic clock exactly used to measure it.

Lucky GPS works! Except that the internal CPU clock on these things would mess all the measurements up for not abiding to the atomic clock rules.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 20:44:46 2018 No.9581312 >>9581298 So, there's a worldwide conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, etc., from a plethora of different fields? gb2 /x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:45:33 2018 No.9581316 >>9581269 Atomic clocks measure aether drag, not time/space as relativity suggests.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:46:42 2018 No.9581318

>>9581298
You just proved his point, anon. The reason GPS works is because relativity is taken into account.

I'm genuinely curious about why you want to believe that the scientific community is duping you and the rest of the world. Is it that you lack the intelligence to understand the concepts/proof, or is it that maybe you like feeling like you're part of an insular group with "secret knowledge" of how things work? Maybe bragging about that "knowledge" makes you feel less insignificant in a world of seven billion minds? I don't know, but you need to fucking stop it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:49:09 2018 No.9581325 >>9581312 No, there's just people under the wrong assumptions. And everyone gets the evil eye as soon as you move away from any of it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:49:18 2018 No.9581326 >>9580836 that's quite the refresh rate! whatever entity coded these laws of physics really knew what they were doing...

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:49:42 2018 No.9581330

>>9581234
>Why would time perception have ties to c
Through relativity? Time dilation increases the closer your speed gets to c. The perception of time is very much related to the speed of light.

>And what about time perception underwater. c_water>c but time perception is the same?
You're combining two different phenomena in this question. c_water is the speed that photons propagate through water, true. But if you were calculating the energy contained in the mass of the this water, you wouldn't use E = (m_water) * (c_water)^2. Do you see the difference?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 20:55:41 2018 No.9581350 >>9581325 Ok. So what's your alternative model of reality that also explains how applying General Relativity has been so wildly successful in GPS?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:56:33 2018 No.9581352

>>9581318
Einstein was popular because he played along with the establishment. He was their darling. One of his responsibilities involved hiding how nuclear energy and other exotic forms of energy works from the public.

To this day, Tesla's papers are being held by the same organization Einstein worked with. Tesla believed that all energy originates from an external source such as the aether. Today, modern physics calls it zeropoint energy. You are being misled.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 20:58:13 2018 No.9581357

>>9581318
Let's think about it hard for a second.

So light is apparently constant across existence, or the speed of it is. We'll take that.

As soon as the concept of reference frames comes in, forget that it's almost unfathomable that the universe isn't in a constant moment, you can't measure anything. Not even with the light loophole.

Time is just motion measured against motion. It's a metric. Not a physical/literal dimension that can be altered. It's arbitrary. It's counting your footsteps in accordance with the shadows being cast by the sun.

So as soon as everything itsn't "All at once" in regards to existence, you can't measure anything because every single reference becomes null.
You could never measure this abstract warping of time in another space because you would always be measuring it from your space against YOUR motions.
And even with the light postulate, that speed is still constant and voids the idea anyway.
If you can measure against light at any point in any place, then it's all constant anyway and it doesn't matter, so immediately all time is at once.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 20:59:03 2018 No.9581362 >>9581325 >>9581350 In other words, does your model vary from the predictions of General Relativity? If not, why should I care? If yes, what are the different predictions?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:02:26 2018 No.9581371 >>9581350 Well mine's just a model too right? Who's to say I'm right. But better to think you're wrong than put anything on a pedestal.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:03:18 2018 No.9581374 >>9581371 >Who's to say I'm right. Tests. Evidence. >But better to think you're wrong than put anything on a pedestal. If that's what the evidence indicates, then yes, something like that.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:05:55 2018 No.9581380

>>9580808
Take an electricity and magnetism course at a community college. You will learn the equations that govern the dynamics of electricity and magnetism - these are called Maxwell's equations.

The two ones which are important for your question are Ampere's law (with Maxwell's correction term) and Faraday's law. Essentially these describe the 'curly' magnetic and electric fields that happen when you have currents and changing magnetic fields.

If you try to treat both of those equations as a system of equations, you end up with two solutions: one trivial (electric and magnetic field both zero), and one complicated, which is the electromagnetic wave equation. This is the case where an electric and magnetic field can propagate as 'light'.

By algebraically manipulating it, you find that the speed at which the wave propagates is equal to 1/sqrt(epsilon_0 * mu_0). Those are both constants which you can measure empirically and assign units to. Punch in those constants in, and you get the speed of light.

This is partially how Maxwell knew that his equations were the proper explanation for how light works - he derived the speed of light from completely unrelated constants and found that it gave the correct number.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:08:53 2018 No.9581391 >>9581362 I only go against Relativity because the ideas translate into the quantum realm. That and maybe gravity being the defining force of existence. And maybe that would be okay if gravity was understood.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:10:00 2018 No.9581396 >>9581391 >That and maybe gravity being the defining force of existence mate, do you even know what you're talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:11:11 2018 No.9581401 >>9581380 But now you're back at the same point. Why do both fields have a limit? Why do the fields curve?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:11:22 2018 No.9581402

>>9581357
>Let's think about it hard for a second

Einstein already did that.
>"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

>you can't measure anything. Not even with the light loophole.

You can, but you need differential equations.

>so immediately all time is at once.
No. Time is relative.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:16:17 2018 No.9581413

>>9581401
>Why do both fields have a limit?

I don't know what you mean by a 'limit'. The reason why there exists a speed of light is because light is a propagating electromagnetic wave, and if you solve for the speed of propagation in a vacuum, you receive a number which agrees with empirical measurement.

Science doesn't deal with 'why' because you end up falling down an endless rabbit hole with that kind of question. Why do things have inertia? Why is charge an existent property, rather than a non-existent one? None of these questions are answerable via experimentation and thus fall outside the purview of science.

>Why do the fields curve?

I don't follow. Are you asking about the 'curly' electric and magnetic fields that I mentioned in the last post?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:17:16 2018 No.9581414 >>9581396 That's the idea from the Relativistic point of view isn't it? Formations are all physical.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:17:21 2018 No.9581415

>the speed at which electromagnetic fields propagate in a vacuum is equal to the speed of light. the photon (quanta of light) is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic force.

That still doesn't answer OP's question. Pi and e are mathematically pure... c isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:18:24 2018 No.9581418 >>9581415 >>9581380 Forgot to include the link whoopsies

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:20:17 2018 No.9581424 >>9580808 Remember measurements are a mental construct. Many of our constants are not nice and neat as a result.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:21:22 2018 No.9581425 >>9581415 >Pi and e are mathematically pure... c isn't. This is because the physics of everything is an unsolved problem. You use empirical constants to fill in the blanks until the theory becomes more robust.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:22:56 2018 No.9581429

>>9581402
Let's go even simpler then. The idea will be that you can't measure anything outside of you reference frame.

You want the effect of time on a different planet's surface compared to your planet.
You can only measure it from two points, that planet or yours.

You can never measure either as being outside of the other's reference because they can never be.
Even if this other planet did experience time at twice as slow as your planet, you could never measure it.
Because as soon as you measure it on your planet, everything is nominal and that planet's motions are in sync with yours, and vice versa.

It's simple, but the idea is to punctuate how perverted the whole space-time thing is in science.
You can't measure something's motion as outside your reference frame because it will always exist inside your reference frame, which is everything at once.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:26:58 2018 No.9581439

>>9581413
You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed.

>The reason why there exists a speed of light is because light is a propagating electromagnetic wave

That's circular logic. The reason there's a limit is because it's propagating through something offering a limit, a resistance. That's evident in every single physical phenomena on Earth.

Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void. The center of a magnet of celestial body proves that.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:28:22 2018 No.9581444 >>9581439 >You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed. No you don't. >>9581439 >Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void. The center of a magnet of celestial body proves that. What?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:31:37 2018 No.9581451

>>9581444
You don't have to answer it, but isn't it better if you can?
You don't need to understand how your digestion system works, but isn't it beneficial to understand it?

The very principle of science is the pursuit of "Why?"
To say the question doesn't really matter is almost dogmatic.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:32:28 2018 No.9581452

>>9581429
"time" as we think of it isn't really accurate. It's more like a fourth dimensional plane that all matter is moving in the same direction in but at different speeds.

solving classical physics problems with single variable calculus works because it's assumed that all the objects are on the same planet or something, but if you change the reference frame you have to use differential equations because you can't simply take time derivatives or integrals anymore.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:32:40 2018 No.9581453

>>9581451
>You don't have to answer it, but isn't it better if you can?
Fundamentally, you cannot. You misunderstand the power of science, and epistemology in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:32:57 2018 No.9581454

>>9581439
>You have to be able to answer "why?", especially for something as basic as speed.

Nobody can though, that's the thing. Certain things 'are' because they 'are'. It's inherently tautological. Even if we explain every part of the universe's physics from the Big Bang until the modern age, we're still going to be deriving fundamental constants from the boundary conditions of the early universe. We won't know why things work the way they do - we'll just be able to describe it with perfect predictive accuracy.

Scientists don't have to answer "why?" in the way you're asking because it's fundamentally outside the bounds of what we do. If the model can agree with all empirical observations, no matter how many times you run it, then it's a perfect theory.

If the inability for human beings to explain natural phenomena in a way which survives your mode of pseudo-Socratic questioning poses a problem for you, then you have to take it up with God since it's his fault, not ours lol

>Light can't move through a perfect vacuum, a literal void

Perfect vacuums cannot exist, and even the vacuum of space is full of electromagnetic radiation. The fundamental idea behind field theory is that a field is something which has a value at every point in the universe. Even if a space appears to be empty, there's still an x% probability that something is in it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:34:22 2018 No.9581456 >>9580848 Also, what if the computer that's emulating us, is in a universe that has laws more complex than our own

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:38:09 2018 No.9581463 >>9581452 Time isn't a physical dimension. It's a measurement. Everything moves in one singular frame of reference. Everything. It can't work any other way.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:39:33 2018 No.9581469 >>9581463 Ok. The evidence says otherwise. For example, two events can be simultaneous to one observer but happen at different times according to another observer. Again, GPS wouldn't work if it were otherwise.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:42:02 2018 No.9581471

>>9580848
your refutation of simulation theory is bullshit.

If you knew the initial state of the universe and also had a GUT, you'd be able to predict every instance of its outcome mathematically.

Simulation theory doesn't stipulate that our universe is being emulated. That's why it's called simulation theory, not emulation theory; the hypothetical universe we're being in simulated with would have to have drastically different laws and way more computing resources.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:44:10 2018 No.9581473 >>9581463 Up isn't a physical dimension, it's a measurement Everything that's up is moving either up or down. Everything. It can't work any other way.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:44:20 2018 No.9581475

>>9581471
Is there any reason why you keep using the word 'theory' despite the fact there's no evidence that we're in a simulation?

Like, I'm willing to believe with a sufficient number of caveats and reductivism, you can conclude that it's ~possible~ the universe is a simulation, but there are no hints that it's actually the case.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:44:27 2018 No.9581476

>>9581453
>>9581454
>We won't know why things work the way they do - we'll just be able to describe it with perfect predictive accuracy

That's a fallacy. That's going around thinking you understand something when you don't.

>Scientists don't have to answer "why?"
You should strive to answer why, because then maybe you're missing out on something.
Maybe your predictions and models and theories are 100% correct. Undeniable empirical evidence that can be replicated again and again.

But, maybe your underlying explanation is wrong. Maybe your understanding is wrong. And maybe those two faults lead into something else, and maybe that something else leads into a whole new world of the same thing.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:46:34 2018 No.9581483

>>9581476
>You should strive to answer why, because then maybe you're missing out on something.
In the sense that you mean, that's simply not what science does.

>That's going around thinking you understand something when you don't.
You just don't understand "understanding", e.g. you don't have a proper understanding of the philosophy of knowledge, aka epistemology. Again, I encourage you to read the link, and watch the video with Feynman. If you're feeling adventurous, head over to the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia.

>But, maybe your underlying explanation is wrong. Maybe your understanding is wrong. And maybe those two faults lead into something else, and maybe that something else leads into a whole new world of the same thing.

The only way that we can discover this is by contradicting evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:47:15 2018 No.9581486 >>9581469 That's impossible. There is only the event and its observation in a single frame. It's irrelevant whether the sound or image hits the receivers at different points. That does not institute a separation of physical time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:48:17 2018 No.9581492 >>9581473 Correct. Now you get it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:48:32 2018 No.9581493 >>9581475 Fair enough. I will henceforth refer to it as the simulation thought experiment.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:49:14 2018 No.9581498

>>9581486
>>9581486
>It's irrelevant whether the sound or image hits the receivers at different points. That does not institute a separation of physical time.
Not talking about that.

You can have two events, say light bulbs turning on, at two different points in space. You can have one observer who calculates the distance to both light bulbs, say with a laser range finder, and finds that they are equally distant, and also sees the light bulbs turn on at the same time.

A second observer can also use a laser range finder to determine the distances to the light bulbs. However, he calculates that the light bulbs turned on at different points in time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:49:55 2018 No.9581500 >>9581498 Dude, I have the utmost respect for you trying to explain this shit to him, but I don't think he wants to get it lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:50:43 2018 No.9581502

>>9581476
>That's a fallacy. That's going around thinking you understand something when you don't.

Your definition of 'understanding' is fundamentally different than mine. I can use my knowledge to make tools, perform chemical reactions, build electronics, etc. The fact that my knowledge rests on axioms like 'the universe is a thing', and 'empirical observations are real' doesn't actually cause me much stress lol.

I am fully aware that it's /technically/ possible that we live in some kind of solipsistic universe, or that we're a simulation, or any number of bullshit cooked up by the average undergrad philosophy major. I have no way of weighting these edge cases by likelihood, nor do I have any way of assessing whether they're true or not. So the only rational choice is to proceed with an actionable way of learning new things - which is science.

>You should strive to answer why, because then maybe you're missing out on something.

Give me exactly one practical step I can make towards doing that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:55:47 2018 No.9581511 >>9581492 what if something is moving up BUT ALSO TO THE SIDE tho?!? :OOOO WHOA

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:56:01 2018 No.9581513

>>9581483
>that's simply not what science does
That's living in a short sighted world. The irony is you're linking philosophy about understanding along with your posts.

Feynman there on the couch is nothing him trying to sideline his understanding of magnetism, or lack thereof. There's nothing philosophically prophetic about it.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 21:56:51 2018 No.9581517 >>9581513 Eh. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 21:57:33 2018 No.9581522 >>9581511 That's your reference, yes? Same thing with time. Only a reference. Does the Earth have 365 spins per orbit? Or does it have 1 orbit per 365 spins?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:00:18 2018 No.9581533

>>9581517
This stuff isn't hard to understand anyway.
Imagine if no one dared to look at a molecular level at things because they held the idea that understanding something didn't matter.

Realise how fucking brain dead your argument is.
>Science isn't to find out why
In your case the horse is drinking and you're wondering why the horse started drinking when you took it there.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:02:32 2018 No.9581540

>>9581513

What you don't get is that we completely understand the epistemology of what you're saying - it's a known limitation of science. We understand that when subjected to reductivist questioning, all of science rests on a set of axioms. That's the point.

The thing that pisses off people like me and the tripcode guy is the fact that these sorts of amateur philosophy types like to point their nose down at us for not 'understanding' anything, when in reality, we're completely aware of the limitations of natural science and do it anyway since it's literally the only actionable form of knowledge-gathering that has come from philosophical thinking.

Karl Popper is rolling in his grave at this entire thread. We should hook him up to a turbine.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 22:03:50 2018 No.9581541

>>9581533
You're misusing the word understanding. If I can look at something new, then I don't understand it, and that means I'll use science to go about understanding it. However, understanding does not generally require answering the "why" or "how" questions. Instead, understanding often is just answering what the "what" question.

I don't need to know how magnets work in order to know that they work, and what they do, and how to use them. I have a perfectly fine understanding.

I'm also constantly looking for new phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:04:30 2018 No.9581543 >>9581540 >>9581513 Furthermore, I'm gonna ask my last question again since it's probably the most important: What practically can any scientist do to 'strive to answer why'? Because if you can't answer that, then you're just being a dick

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:07:08 2018 No.9581551 >>9581090 >The speed of light, c, DOESN'T have a specific value, which may be hard to grasp. Yes it does, are you a moron?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:08:07 2018 No.9581552 >>9581540 Just keep it simple. I use experiment to understand. I build my understanding from evidences. Simple. Easy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:08:11 2018 No.9581553 >>9581476 >That's going around thinking you understand something when you don't. If you can predict something you understand it. Why? Because that's what understanding means.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:11:23 2018 No.9581560

>>9581541
>I don't need to know how magnets work in order to know that they work, and what they do, and how to use them. I have a perfectly fine understanding

You have put a limited understanding on yourself for thinking that you understand them to an extent of "fine".

You need to know how they work. You don't need to know how something works to measure it, or to experience it, but you do need to understand it to figure out how it works on a deeper level and whether it connects to anything else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:11:38 2018 No.9581562 >>9581552 I don't think I was saying anything else besides that?

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:12:55 2018 No.9581566

>>9581560
>You need to know how they work. You don't need to know how something works to measure it, or to experience it, but you do need to understand it to figure out how it works on a deeper level and whether it connects to anything else.

Again - both me and Scientist (presumably) are actual research scientists. Give us one concrete suggestion for what you want and we'll tell you if it's actionable. 'Strive to understand why' is a platitude. Tell us what you actually want lol

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 22:14:49 2018 No.9581570

>>9581560
>You need to know how they work.
No I don't. Look at how much we've accomplished in the real world without understanding how magnets work.

>but you do need to understand it to figure out how it works on a deeper level and whether it connects to anything else.
And as soon as such evidence becomes available, I'm interested. You're still missing the point though. Go back to the Munchaussen trilemma. As soon as you figure out that deeper understanding, it will lead to new "why?" questions. "Why is it this way instead of some other way?" is a question that you can always ask. You're never going to get a fundamental answer to that question. You might get to deeper levels, but every time you find a deeper level, you're (temporarily) stuck with "I don't know how it works, I just know that it operates according to this predictive model."

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:15:02 2018 No.9581571

>>9581553
That's illogical too. How can you predict something 100% of the time when you don't understand it? If you don't know someone's character, can you predict their actions and words accurately?

You might say, "Well that's an emotional thing, this is all mechanistic, like magnets".
And that's folly to assume that you can predict everything when you don't understand it at its core. What the literal thing is.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:16:49 2018 No.9581576

>>9581571
>How can you predict something 100% of the time when you don't understand it?

I can't give you a reductivism-proof explanation for why a microwave oven doesn't suddenly start pouring out lava, but there's a great scientific explanation that has worked 100% of the time for all of microwave-history.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:18:32 2018 No.9581580

>>9581570
Everything is understandable because it exists. There is nothing outside of the realm of "What is/why" that doesn't hold an answer. If it is, it is, and you can figure it out.
You'll never get any more evidence because you're prescribing to the idea that the current understanding is the apex. That the reason is unwarranted.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:20:27 2018 No.9581586

>>9581566
I don't need you to tell me if it's actionable. I have my own experiments. And I understand that my core as a result of those evidences theories may be wrong.

But that's a step towards understanding something and not just stopping at predictions.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Mon Mar 12 22:20:44 2018 No.9581587

>>9581580
>Everything is understandable because it exists.
No. That's what the Munchaussen trilemma shows.

>You'll never get any more evidence because you're prescribing to the idea that the current understanding is the apex.
I am not. I am saying that no matter where you are, your entire scientific understanding is based on predictive models which have no explanation for why they work besides "it's consistent with the evidence". That line might move over time, but no matter where that line is, that's what you're stuck with.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:22:06 2018 No.9581591

>>9581571
>>9581571
>How can you predict something 100% of the time when you don't understand it?
you... can't...

>If you don't know someone's character, can you predict their actions and words accurately?
...no

That's why when we can predict something 100% of the time, it's safe to say we understand it. What other knowledge could you want? None is necessary, or even useful.

Your logic is backwards. Think about it, if we did really "understand" something, how would we even know that we did?

We would we use this understanding to predict things, and see if we were right. Also known as
>science

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:22:37 2018 No.9581593

>>9581586
>But that's a step towards understanding something

But it isn't because we've already established that 'understanding something' under the purview of your philosophy is literally impossible.

Eat shit dude, I gotta study.

>>9581587
Scientist, stop responding to him lol

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:26:42 2018 No.9581602

>>9581593
>>9581591
This is brain dead stuff man.

If I look at a rock I look deep into it to understand is and come to my own conclusions that are in accordance with my experiments or others. The rock is there.

The fuck are you two talking about? Everything is physical and metaphysical in the world and thus understandable at a sensory level at the very least.

You're both retards. i hope you both sit at your desk chairs and literally go fucking brain dead for this sort of drivel. Oh wait, you both have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:29:33 2018 No.9581605 >>9581602 jesus, I thought he was a undergrad philosophy major, but this is worse he's a /geologist/

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 22:29:34 2018 No.9581606 No one knows. It just happens it's that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:15:34 2018 No.9581719 >>9581606 Good to know we have come nowhere in our rationale in 700 years.

Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:17:05 2018 No.9581720

>>9581605
Isn rather smash rocks in half than link people to Wikipedia articles about philosophy and argue that nothing is understandable.

>dur you'll never understand it because your social and language and your data is all-
Just understand it. Figure it out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:25:24 2018 No.9581743 Something to do with c = 1/√(μ0ε0) I presume

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:34:27 2018 No.9581757 >>9581743 Yes but why

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:36:43 2018 No.9581762 >>9581602 brainlet ramblings lmao everything is understandable, but all understanding comes in terms of other things, we know F in terms of m and a, length in terms of meters, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 12 23:44:07 2018 No.9581777 >>9581762 So you know F

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:07:59 2018 No.9581815

>>9580808

Sunlight takes about 8 minutes to reach earth. A minute can be loosely defined as some fraction of the time it takes for earth to make 1 orbit around the sun. Speed of light is (1/8)AU/m

Someone across the room lights a candle. I see the candle light "instantaneously."

"Speed up" light 8 times so that it goes 1AU/m.

Someone across the room lights a candle. I still see the candle light "instantaneously." I can't perceive the increase in the speed of light. Should make no difference in day to day experience, at least intuitively.

If the speed of light increases to 1AU/m, does the earth's orbit then go 8 times faster? Does the earth then go closer to the sun so that we're back to (1/8)AU/m as the speed of light because that's all it can ever be in our universe?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:26:47 2018 No.9581858

>>9581068
Aether, or whatever you are calling it, be it ether, aether, ather, or some variation of that, does not exist. Outer Space, or empty space, is a vacuum, which is devoid of particles.
Light travels through outer space from the sun, to the earth. Does the light warp from the outer layers of the sun to our atmosphere? No, it does not, for we can put solar panels in space, and generate electricity. That would require photons to be able to travel through a vacuum, which they do so, and at a rather high speed.
What I am proposing is that photons must be able to traverse without the need for a medium to traverse through.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 00:33:50 2018 No.9581878

>>9581757
>>9581777

delxB=μ0ε0(dE/dt)
delxdelxB=μ0ε0(ddelxE/dt)
deldeldotB-deldelB=-μ0ε0(d^2B/dt^2)
deldotB=0
del^2B=-μ0ε0(d^2B/dt^2)

wave equation
del^2u=-1/v^2(d^2u/dt^2)
-1/v^2=-μ0ε0
v= 1/sqrt(μ0ε0) for EM waves

would you say you "understand" it now?

>>	> Tue Mar 13 00:36:13 2018 No.9581883 >>9580905 OP, if you are still here, this is what you are looking for.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 01:16:57 2018 No.9581972 >>9580905 Noice

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:19:03 2018 No.9582083 >>9581878 No. You posted a wave equation. I wanted the wave reason equation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:20:10 2018 No.9582084 >>9581883 Oh space? The almost perfect vacuum that holds no real properties?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:21:37 2018 No.9582086 >>9580844 holy fuck don't tell me yer an atheist too ? actually I want that answered

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:24:00 2018 No.9582089

>>9580848
actually with ongoing programming, patches and DLC it makes perfect sense

but you're an insane fuckbird idiot like Elon Musk if you think there is even any chance at all we're in a simulation...

the god damned fools we have nowadays - why are they in the sci channel this is supposed to be 141 iq average what the fuck it's been retarded for two days

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:26:35 2018 No.9582091 >>9580914 fuck yeah high five for the fucktards surrounding us

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:30:34 2018 No.9582094 >>9582091 What is sarcasm

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:31:16 2018 No.9582098 >>9580998 he's an idiot he responded don't read it or you'll want to punch his face for being so stupid and actually typing it

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:38:58 2018 No.9582109 >>9582084 >what is Calabi-Yau >what is frame dragging >what are virtual particles >what is dark energy no properties, my ass

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:41:21 2018 No.9582111 >>9582109 Come on Anon, all that stuff is garbage. Virtual particles? Dark energy? Come on man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:46:31 2018 No.9582118 >>9582111 your brain is garbage, go back to watching conspiracy theories and bullshit metaphysics videos

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:51:19 2018 No.9582122 What's the point of quantum entanglement? If it can't be used to send information FTL, what use is it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:53:40 2018 No.9582126 >>9582122 it's a property of the universe, if you can or can't find a use for it is irrelevant

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:56:13 2018 No.9582130

>>9582118
No all that stuff is garbage, and it fucks with my electrical engineering stuff because everyone pedals it over and over.

There's no fucking dark energy, you can't even point at it anywhere.
Virtual particles are the biggest bullshit being fed to people.
What even is the definition, extra perturbations in a field with the particles but no one knows what they are physically because they're just anomalies expect they're not and once someone penned magnetism as that and oh my Lord.

Frame dragging too, like existence is a video game or something. Fuck me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 02:57:25 2018 No.9582132 >>9581471 >If you knew the initial state of the universe and also had a GUT, you'd be able to predict every instance of its outcome mathematically. assuming the simulation is entirely deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:01:29 2018 No.9582136 >>9582130 >trying this much lame troll

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:02:13 2018 No.9582137

>>9582130
>There's no fucking dark energy, you can't even point at it anywhere.

Because 'not being able to point at it anywhere' is a way bigger problem than the universe expanding at a rate consistent with way more energy than actually exists?

The existence of dark energy is inherently hypothetical - it doesn't describe a 'thing', it describes a difference.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:04:36 2018 No.9582141 >>9582137 >taking an "electrical engineer" seriously

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:06:06 2018 No.9582143

>>9582130
dark energy is just the cosmological constant, the zero point energy of the universe, it has to exist in any case because all fields have a zero point energy

virtual particles can be detected indirectly by their effects on real particles, see the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen for example

frame dragging is just really obvious to happen when gravity is described as the geometric warping of spacetime and that all massive objects spin due to conservation of angular momentum, look it up yourself

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:08:43 2018 No.9582147

>>9581003
>Surely some property of the universe is what sets the speed of light.
The speed of light is the speed of light, everything else is happening relative to the speed of light. There is no speed of light as measured by other speeds, everything else is just a fraction of the speed of light

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:09:58 2018 No.9582149

>>9582137
Hypothetical but no one shuts up about it.
No one knows if the universe is expanding or contracting. We have those redshift articles with galaxies birthing tails and their shifts being different 40 years back now.

It's a fucking arrogant idea that's only there to support the big bang bullshit.
So the space between galaxies is increasing, but the galaxies aren't expanding nor is anything inside the galaxy.

But what is pushing it out then? What's expandi-DARK MATTER

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:10:33 2018 No.9582150 >>9580870 >there’s no real answer This has flared my autism

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:11:43 2018 No.9582151 >>9582143 >frame dragging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:11:48 2018 No.9582152

>>9582149
>No one knows if the universe is expanding or contracting.
>It's a fucking arrogant idea that's only there to support the big bang bullshit.

I don't think you actually know enough about physics to be discounting any of these things.

>But what is pushing it out then? What's expandi-DARK MATTER

Ironically, the idea of 'dark matter' exists to explain the reason why galaxy superclusters are able to hold together despite having insufficient mass. So, not 'pushing it out', but actually 'pulling it together'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:11:55 2018 No.9582153 >>9582147 >It is because it is This is worse reasoning than religious fundamentalists clinging to scripture stories as literal.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:12:55 2018 No.9582155 >>9582153 Are you the same retard that I called a geologist? In the time you've been shitposting, I ran an assay and finished a paper. Get a fucking hobby dude.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:14:13 2018 No.9582158 >>9582143 Big deal. No one knows what a field is. Some other Anon above was saying that that's perfectly normal not to understand it. Frame dragging doesn't exist. There is no space-time. There's just thing's moving.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:14:17 2018 No.9582159 >>9581108 he's dense as a brick

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:15:58 2018 No.9582161 >>9582149 >doesn't know the difference between >dark matter & dark energy KEK

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:16:01 2018 No.9582162

>>9582152
The point is space doesn't expand nor does it contract. You can't bend space, you can't warp it.
There is no small scale experiment that exists to prove any of that, people just point at gravity or the satellites or some bullshit.

>It exists because it's gravity and it wouldn't be there without gravity
That's pithy logic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:16:07 2018 No.9582163 >>9582158 >No one knows what a field is get the fuck out kill yourself too preferably

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:17:49 2018 No.9582165 >>9582155 Well you sit there with your paper and be happy that you don't understand why light moves at the speed it does. >I wrote a paper Good job.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:17:57 2018 No.9582166

>>9582162
>You can't bend space, you can't warp it.

Says who? I could just as easily say that you can't suck cock, but your status as an electrical engineer suggests otherwise.

>There is no small scale experiment that exists to prove any of that, people just point at gravity or the satellites or some bullshit.

Weird, I didn't realize that we needed to miniaturize modern science into the scale of an 8th grade science class demonstration to appease retards.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:17:58 2018 No.9582167 >>9582162 >There is no small scale experiment that exists to prove any of that, people just point at gravity or the satellites or some bullshit. GPS is not bullshit. Nor is Michelson-Morley.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:19:12 2018 No.9582169 >>9582161 There's a good similarity between them though: Neither have been observed. Kek it up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:19:40 2018 No.9582170 >>9580989 >you cant ask why that is so because that assumes there's a reason and we dont know if there is. HOLY FUCK ARE YOU EVER DUMB >>9581165 he only gets a bit of it

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:19:49 2018 No.9582171

>>9582165
>Well you sit there with your paper and be happy that you don't understand why light moves at the speed it does.

Neither do you, but understanding how to derive it from first principles can be used to build stuff like satellites, electronics, transistors etc. Don't see much of a market for pseudo-intellects who only know how to apply babby's first reductivism.

Fortunately I hear the cock-sucking market is doing great right now, so you've got that going for you.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:21:43 2018 No.9582172

>>9582163
What's a field then? What is its form? It's literal physicality?

>Well here's a few field equations, here's some Heaviside stuff and here's some Einstein and here's some Faraday and

We want to know what a field is. Not just its effects measurements. What it is. Not just how it is.
Not the mathematical description of a field either as points across a space, the actual field.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:24:16 2018 No.9582175 >>9582172 Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:24:44 2018 No.9582176 >>9582169 what is gravitational lensing >b-but that's not seeing it duh, not seeing it is the fucking definition of dark matter

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:25:45 2018 No.9582179 >>9582166 I didn't realize you can conceptualize the entirety of existence by just looking from a few scopes on a ball.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:25:51 2018 No.9582180

>>9582172
>We want to know what a field is. Not just its effects measurements. What it is. Not just how it is.

Imagine being such a cock-sucker that you spend literally four hours parroting the same babby-level undergrad metaphysics bullshit over and over knowing that no human being is capable of answering your question.

I think your imperative for doing this shit is actually a coping mechanism for the fact you don't actually know jack shit. It's easy to pretend like you have a meaningful intellectual contribution when your entire argument goes: "U can't know nuffin, u can't even know u know nuffin"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:26:55 2018 No.9582182 >>9582172 we can only understand the universe through mathematical descriptions a field is just something that has a value in all points of space you can ask the same thing about any other mathematic abstractions too

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:27:04 2018 No.9582183 >>9582167 GPS through satellites is bullshit. And no one has any idea on the Michelson Morely thing.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:27:20 2018 No.9582184

>>9582167
yes MM is about as stupid as anything gets
measure a difference of 498 million feet per second perhaps at one percent or far less over a 10 foot table
NO RESULT IS POSSIBLE

GPS adjustments also have another very convenient and identical explanation - but you fucking retards wouldn't know that

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:28:09 2018 No.9582186

>>9582179
I didn't realize that a trained-and-certified cock-sucker was the arbiter of truth in the Universe. Why even build a particle collider when we can just email Dave the MOSFET jockey and ask him whether spacetime is curvable?

That reminds me, what's the critical scale limit for a 'small-scale experiment'? I store some reagents by the gallon and I'm afraid that if I put too much of it together, it'll hit your arbitrary limit and stop working as science

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:28:29 2018 No.9582187 >>9582183 So, you're just trolling then? >>9582184 >GPS adjustments also have another very convenient and identical explanation - but you fucking retards wouldn't know that I asked above - what is that, oh super-genius of our times?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:29:06 2018 No.9582188 >>9582183 >Michelson Morely you have no idea on the spelling thing

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:30:21 2018 No.9582190

>>9582171
There's a difference there.
Yes you can build that stuff, because you can measure the effects, it's fine.
What we're trying to get from all this is the hidden side of electricity and light. We need to figure out the physicality of it more, which is hard because you rarely see it.

But that's the point. The point is to link everything together through the aether and be done with the Relativistic ideas on gravity as a start.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:32:10 2018 No.9582195 >>9582175 Well here's a question I've put on /sci/ 400 times: The field around a magnet, it is moving? What about the field around a conducting path? How is that moving? What about the field around the sun? What does that look like?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:34:07 2018 No.9582198

>>9582195
> The field around a magnet, it is moving?
A field doesn't move. A field is an modeling tool that occupies all of space. A field is a modeling tool that has a separate value at every point in space. The values of the field change over time. I don't know what you might mean with the words "is the field moving?".

"What does that look like?" Again, I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you please try to phrase it in terms of a falsifiable or observable prediction please?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:34:34 2018 No.9582199 >>9582176 The lensing can be done with simple experiments. It doesn't have anything to do with dark matter/energy. You can do it with CRT tubes, do it with magnets, do it with ferrofluid and LEDs, this and that. Simple.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:34:58 2018 No.9582200

>>9582190
>We need to figure out the physicality of it more, which is hard because you rarely see it.

The thing that literally every other sane individual in this thread has been trying to tell you is that such a thing is literally fucking impossible. The means to observe the state and behavior of subatomic physics is by using highly abstracted instrumentation, and what comes out of the other end isn't a picture of what it 'is', but an increasingly predictive of model of how it 'works'.

What you want is someone to shrink you down to the size of a photon and have you look at it. Pretending even like such a thing was a meaningful idea, a similarly gung-ho philosophy undergrad could just tell you that it's Plato's Cave and that whatever you're seeing is but the illusions of a solipsistic universe. This is why your pseudo-Socratic questioning is such bullshit. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, and the Scientist tripcode guy has been trying to say that this entire time. Your obsession with "metaphysics" inevitably boils down to either a circular argument, an endlessly recursive argument, or one which rests on a handful of reasonably agreeable axioms. Science deals with the third outcome and that's all it does.

I swear to god, if you reply to this with some half-ass bullshit about how you can 'understand' a rock by looking at it really hard, I will summon the will to punch you directly through your computer monitor.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:36:48 2018 No.9582205 >>9582184 I don't think you understand how an interferometer works, a result is definitely possible There's been way more accurate similar experiments since then too, but better to just ignore those and keep believing in conspiracy bullshit, right?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:37:08 2018 No.9582206

>>9582186
The point is to just do simple things and understand the concepts and build a base for further theorising.

Building a 20km long pipe underground to read God knows what is beyond stupid. Someone put it well, "It's (particle Collider) like crashing a plane into the side of a mountain to figure out how they fly."

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:38:01 2018 No.9582209 >>9582206 Do you have a valid critique? I just see bullshit.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:41:28 2018 No.9582213

>>9582198
What does the field look like.
You know when you see current ionizing the air and you it's path? That's the same thing.

It's not a modelling tool. It's metaphysical. You can't see it or interact with it.
A magnet, has a reach. It's field is physical, not just a model of points to denote the force.

If we go back to the magnet, is this physicality surrounding the magnet static? Or is it moving?
Just take it as a hypothetical if you don't want to see the field as something literal and try to figure out how you could figure out if it really was moving.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:41:58 2018 No.9582214

>>9582206
>The point is to just do simple things and understand the concepts and build a base for further theorising.

Serious question: have you done literally any science beyond like, the 12th grade level? Nothing of publishable quality is 'simple' and relies on base concepts. Back when Newton was laying out the first principles of modern physics, he said he was standing on the 'shoulders of giants'. These giants have been getting stacked up for the past 400 years, and you think that we're going to be able to discern the intricacies of modern physics with prisms and candles? Fuck off, man.

>"It's (particle Collider) like crashing a plane into the side of a mountain to figure out how they fly."

If you think this is even a remotely accurate description of how particle collider experiments work, you're flat-out retarded. Like the fact that you even think that's a semi-reasonable analogy betrays the fact you don't even have a cursory understanding of it. Please resume your normal EE cock-sucking duties and quit posting

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:44:47 2018 No.9582219

>>9582200
No. You can break everything down and understand it. Because if one day you physically see it, all of that is gone.
Who would have thought you'd be seeing molecules 1000 years back?

Science is about defining what is through outcome. And if you don't believe that, fine, just look at everything through that lens of "No light at the end of the tunnel".

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:44:47 2018 No.9582220

>>9582213
Well, you're using terms differently than how I see terms used in academia. A magnet does not have a separate field. Rather, there is the magnetic field, which occupies all of space, and has a separate value at every point in space. A permanent magic influences the magnetic field. This is how academia uses the term "field" regarding "the magnetic field" and "permanent magnets". So, what do you mean by field? It's obvious that you're using the word to mean something different. I don't understand how you are using the word.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:48:08 2018 No.9582224 >>9582199 >my theory as an EE is that space >has CRT tubes

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:48:43 2018 No.9582225

>>9582219
>Who would have thought you'd be seeing molecules 1000 years back?

See you aren't even consistent in your own bullshit dude. You can't 'see' molecules. Why does stuff like AFM and electron microscopes count as 'valid understanding', but a perfectly descriptive mathematical formula is suddenly just invented bullshit?

Also, did I manage to punch you through the monitor? I tried really hard after reading this bullshit

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:52:54 2018 No.9582232

>>9582214
You should make it simple so you don't go down rabbit holes, like where the relativists/cosmologists and particle colliders are now. they're in their own world with baryons and gluons and quark spins and black holes in an expanding universe.

If you keep it simple, you humble yourself and your understanding.
Not to say everything is simple, because that's relative.

If you wanted to study how a flower grows, where would you start? Would you immediately cut it open and start digging through its leaves and DNA and the physiology of the insects on it?
You observe it. You look how it grows, the patterns the leaves exhibit. The ratios at which the branches fork and then you compare it another plant. And another plant.

Each layer of something is not more important than any other. The most simple, readily observable aspects of something are still a part of it, right down to the atom.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:54:09 2018 No.9582235

For somebody who would travel with 100% speed of light, it actually would be infinite, because time would stop for you and you would feel like reaching any point in the universe instantly. If you can reach any point in the universe instantly this is the same as travelling with infinite speed.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:56:01 2018 No.9582237 >>9582232 Ok. Please give and explain a model of reality which is simpler than General Relativity, and which also matches all current experimental data. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:56:48 2018 No.9582240 >>9582220 Fine. We'll go with your definition. How is the magnet influencing this field that occupies all of space? And if be the case, where does this other field come from? The Earth? It is just innate in existence?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:57:42 2018 No.9582241

>>9582232
>You should make it simple so you don't go down rabbit holes, like where the relativists/cosmologists and particle colliders are now. they're in their own world with baryons and gluons and quark spins and black holes in an expanding universe.

And you're the authority on what 'should' be, why? Do you have some sort of magic box that tells you how complicated the universe actually is?

>If you wanted to study how a flower grows, where would you start? Would you immediately cut it open and start digging through its leaves and DNA and the physiology of the insects on it?
You observe it. You look how it grows, the patterns the leaves exhibit. The ratios at which the branches fork and then you compare it another plant. And another plant.

Each layer of something is not more important than any other. The most simple, readily observable aspects of something are still a part of it, right down to the atom.

This is all 100% bullshit platitude Deepak Chopra nonsense. You are parroting some hippie-dippy bullshit that you read in a New Age book. It all screams 'white guy who converted to Buddhism'.

Kindly align your mouth chakras directly onto the head of a cock.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 03:57:51 2018 No.9582242

>>9582240
>How is the magnet influencing this field that occupies all of space?
As I've been saying, no idea. No one knows.

>And if be the case, where does this other field come from? The Earth? It is just innate in existence?
In the model, the magnetic field just exists. There is no "cause" of the magnetic field in the model.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 03:58:35 2018 No.9582244 >>9582225 They both count as understanding. The equations are measurement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:03:48 2018 No.9582247 >>9582244 >They both count as understanding So the two hours you spent shitting on the mathematical derivation of 'c' is suddenly retconned as 'legitimate understanding'? Please kill yourself.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:05:27 2018 No.9582249

>>9582237
To me, everything is aetheric and everything follows this fundamental 'field' which is the atom.
That's why you have things like the golden ratio, how this dynamic field is moving constantly.
It's why your planetary orbits look like they do, along a plane and at different tiers along, a golden ratio.
That's why your magnet's field protrudes out when you line the atoms up.
That's why the planets never spiral into the sun, because they're in equilibrium between both fields.
That's why they spin, because the field is spinning. The Earth spins in reference to its field.
That's why electrostatic circuits push outwards. That's why magnets have two components to their field.
That's why galaxies form as they do.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:06:42 2018 No.9582250

When you ask a scientist a "why" question they interpret it as "how do you know." Which is why you are getting definitions and proofs.

But it seems like you are asking "why" in its other meaning. The deeper "why" you are asking is a question of intentionality. You're asking what was the intention for c to be how it is? Implicit in this question is the need for there to be an intender. So we can see that this "why" gets into First Mover/God territory.

If you want to dig into that, I would recommend Spinoza and Liebniz (who would argue that c is the way it is because if it were anything else it would be worse).

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:07:21 2018 No.9582252 >>9582249 Ok. Bring new falsifiable predictions, or show that the existing models are inconsistent with experimental or observable data. Until then, I don't give a fuck, and whatever you're doing is not science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:08:21 2018 No.9582253 >>9582242 charged particles exchanging virtual photons quantum electrodynamics describes it really well

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:09:09 2018 No.9582255

>>9582242
Okay, now why don't you know?
You don't need a model to tell you what is, you just need to figure it out.

People do know what it is because it's very simple stuff.
You can just look at the direction of hydrogen bubbles at different magnetic poles. Or the patterns of light when they interact with a field. Is it just a straight line?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:09:46 2018 No.9582256

>>9582249
>To me, everything is aetheric and everything follows this fundamental 'field' which is the atom.

Well, there exist other things besides atoms, so that's already bullshit.

>That's why you have things like the golden ratio, how this dynamic field is moving constantly.

Not sure how you got from 'atom' to 'golden ratio' but it sounds really hippie-dippie and deep so it must be right.

>It's why your planetary orbits look like they do, along a plane and at different tiers along, a golden ratio.

Planetary orbits generally follow elliptical shapes, and the golden ratio doesn't appear anywhere in them. Again, pseudo-intellectual 2deep4me shit

>That's why your magnet's field protrudes out when you line the atoms up.

Not how magnets work. You line up the intrinsic spins of electrons to form permanent dipoles, not atoms.

>That's why the planets never spiral into the sun, because they're in equilibrium between both fields.

Planets are not held in orbit by magnetism.

>That's why they spin, because the field is spinning. The Earth spins in reference to its field.

Thought the 'field' was made of atoms? Again, this is pseudo-intellectual Chopra bullshit. Meaningless and inconsistent.

>That's why electrostatic circuits push outwards. That's why magnets have two components to their fields

Don't know what you mean by 'two components'. But then again you probably don't actually mean anything lol

>That's why galaxies form as they do.

What? How did any of the past 6 lines even arrive at this point?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:09:53 2018 No.9582257

>>9582253
Yes yes. I'm trying to answer his intended question, and not his literal question. His intended question should be "and how do charged particles produce or exchange virtual photons", and "why do the quantum fields of quantum field theory interact in the way that they do, and how do they interact and do what they do?".

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:10:12 2018 No.9582258 >>9582247 We're saying "why?" We don't care about the speed taken by its components.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:11:09 2018 No.9582260

>>9582250
>If you want to dig into that, I would recommend Spinoza and Liebniz (who would argue that c is the way it is because if it were anything else it would be worse).

Don't waste your time on this guy. He's not actually interested in real philosophy - he's just at that stage of adolescence where you shitpost babby's first metaphysics on /sci/.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:12:03 2018 No.9582262

>>9582255
I'm not playing this game any more. I've made my position clear, multiple times, and I'm not going to repeat myself any more. And I'm definitely not going to continue to play along while you coyly hide your actual positions behind some arrogant Socratic reasoning approach.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:12:40 2018 No.9582263 >>9582149 >Hypothetical but no one shuts up about it. >No one knows if the universe is expanding or contracting LOL WRONG ! The universe is infinite and not expanding nor contracting

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:13:39 2018 No.9582265

>>9582258
Here, why don't you subscribe to this guy's (>>9582249) bullshit theory of everything? It comes off sufficiently deep and pseudointellectual, so I think you'll take a liking to it.

If it doesn't have a name yet, I suggest we call it "Dave the MOSFET Jockey's Budget Standard Model"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:14:26 2018 No.9582266 >>9582153 >This is worse reasoning it's not reasoning it's saying I don't know

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:14:40 2018 No.9582267 >>9581269 You don't need relativity to explain clock retardation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:16:56 2018 No.9582268 How did I end up arguing with the newest class of Time Cube crazies at 4:16 AM? Man, I actually know shit, this is beneath me. I am genuinely ashamed of this :/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:19:35 2018 No.9582270 >>9582257 broken symmetries

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:20:06 2018 No.9582272 >>9582205 >interferometer you mean how they don't work

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:20:17 2018 No.9582273 >>9582256 Slow down Anon, you tell me why the golden ratio is prevalent through existence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:21:16 2018 No.9582274 >>9582272 why wouldn't they work? you don't believe light has a wavelength?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:21:40 2018 No.9582275 >>9582252 But those are my things, and they're perfectly in-line with my atom. Doesn't mean I'm right though.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:21:44 2018 No.9582276 >>9582267 As I said, give me the mathematical model that does so, which is also not relativity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:22:43 2018 No.9582277 >>9582263 Nothing is infinite if it exists.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:23:46 2018 No.9582278

>>9582273
There's actually an interesting biological explanation for why Fibonacci patterns appear that has to do with the energy-efficiency of forming metameric structures. Basically, the most efficient way to build a repeated structure from center outwards is a spiral.

Although, most things people stick the golden ratio on aren't actually Fibonacci spirals. They're just logarithm curves. So how do you plan on integrating that new knowledge into your standard model, Dave the MOSFET Jockey?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:28:42 2018 No.9582281 >>9582278 It could exist at a biological level. Sure. BUT What if There was a base atomic structure that fitted that Fibonacci patterns perfectly. Then what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:29:21 2018 No.9582282 >>9582274 I only believe in devices that use CRTs. They warm my EE soul, and frankly I don't understand this LED meme raging all over.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:31:12 2018 No.9582283

>>9582276
Math isn't proof. Mathematics is measurement.
How many experiments have with currents at different altitudes? Or light at different altitudes?
Or both at sites with gravitational anomalies?

Anyway the clock stuff is retarded. The clocks are based on lasers which goes against the idea that light holds a constant speed.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:32:06 2018 No.9582284
File: 16 KB, 300x175, michaelsonmorley1887.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9582274
what expansion/contraction do you think that table has in an environment with a human in the room ?
seriously you people are so god damned dumb, and that's why that shit passes, and then is repeated by another thousand morons over many years

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:32:39 2018 No.9582286 >>9582281 >There was a base atomic structure that fitted that Fibonacci patterns perfectly. Then what? You would have to show me what you mean, since I have no clue what you're talking about.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:32:46 2018 No.9582287

>>9581269
There is absoluetely no proof for relativity, and neither are satellites. If there was proof for relativity it would get an instant nobel prize. But neither Einstein himself, nor any other scientists after him proofing it every got one for relativity.

In fact, satellites are a good example why relativitiy is most likely false. Relativity predicts that a satellite's clock should be ticking 45 microseconds faster than an earth clock. However, in reality it is 38 microseconds. Now most scientists who believe in relativity say, oh this is because of inaccuracies, old clocks, etc. This is also why GPS systems don't actually use Einstein's equations. It would give false results.

The slowing down of clocks in satellites can be perfectly explained with less density there making the clocks go faster. There is no need for time dilation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:32:59 2018 No.9582288 >>9582282 >I only believe in devices that use CRTs. cathode ray tubes? what? why? that's so unbelievably stupid i don't know what to say

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:33:45 2018 No.9582289 >>9582287 >breaking news: dumbass on /sci/ debunks Einstein, becomes new archetypical smart guy in pop culture

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:35:45 2018 No.9582291

>>9582277
>"matter is not infinite"
Well, no proof of that
The laws of the universe, nature, physics, call it whatever you like, have already declared and infinite universe. you aren't going to find and edge nor a wall not a loop around, nor anything else but forever in every direction

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:36:02 2018 No.9582292 >>9582287 you have to calculate the effects of both special relativity for speed and general relativity due to gravity, dumbass

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:36:11 2018 No.9582293 >>9582289 I debunked someone who said that satellites are a proof that relativity is 100% true, which is false. Not Einstein himself.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:36:11 2018 No.9582294

>>9582283
As I said, give me an alternative model that makes falsifiable predictions that are borne out by the evidence which differ from General Relativity, or point out the flaws in General Relativity. Otherwise, I don't care, shut the fuck up, and get off the science board, because that's not science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:36:49 2018 No.9582295 >>9582286 I'm saying the Atom is the field around a magnet. That's the atom. It's a spinning double helix sphere thing with a void center and two opposing twisters at each pole that converge into the center and outwards and in back to the center.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:38:46 2018 No.9582296 >>9582291 Not in an expanding big bang universe where black holes exist. Matter is in definition, finite. It can't be anything else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:39:43 2018 No.9582298 File: 187 KB, 720x576, ad-hominem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9582288

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:39:56 2018 No.9582299

>>9582295
>I'm saying the Atom is the field around a magnet. That's the atom.

This is meaningless mangling of established terminology. Smoke less hash

>spinning double helix sphere

You might as well have said 'square-like triangle circle'.

A double helix is an actual shape, and a sphere is an actual shape, but a 'double helix sphere' is a fake thing made by a pseudointellectual who wants to sound smart and deep :^)

Do me a favor and draw me a picture of a 'double helix sphere'

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:40:09 2018 No.9582300 >>9582295 why are you wasting your time here and not proving that instead oh, that's right, because it's a bunch of bullshit

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:40:37 2018 No.9582301 >>9582291 Facts not in evidence. >>9582296 Facts not in evidence.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:42:19 2018 No.9582305

>>9582294
Neither is the assumption that time travel is possible.
The flaws in relativity should be easily discernible to anyone.

Space doesn't bend. Gravity isn't solely attributed to mass. Time doesn't exist in a relativistic sense, it's only a measurement.

You don't even need any experiments or math. You don't need the peer reviewing of people who already ascribe to those notions to prove that they aren't real. Those points are self evidently wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:42:43 2018 No.9582307 >>9582298 i only believe in devices that use <unrelated thing> that's how i learn about the universe, oh yes

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:43:34 2018 No.9582310

>>9582305
>The flaws in relativity should be easily discernible to anyone.

Nope. Not seeing any.

> Space doesn't bend. Gravity isn't solely attributed to mass. Time doesn't exist in a relativistic sense, it's only a measurement.

Citations please.

> Those points are self evidently wrong.

If anything, quantum theory should teach us that our "common sense" is basically useless when it comes to determining what is actually true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:44:10 2018 No.9582312 >>9582301 It certainly is factual - do you have some alternate 3d model ? LOL YOU'RE AN IDIOT AGAIN

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:46:08 2018 No.9582314

>>9582299
It's just the magnet's field. Your bloch wall and your poles except it's all in motion. One pole spins clockwise the other counterclockwise. Then there are two outer spins.

But that's just from really simple experiments and magnets and strings and lights and ferrofluids and hydrogen and electrical propagation. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's a step in the right direction to know the field is in motion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:46:29 2018 No.9582315 >>9582294 https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0502/0502007.pdf

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:46:40 2018 No.9582316

>>9582312
Eternal inflation seems like a plausible enough model, and in that model, our bubble of spacetime would have an edge.

There also appear to be plausible models where geometry of spacetime is completely flat at the largest scales, which would mean neverending space, e.g. infinite space, with neverending mass, e.g. infinite mass, of a particular finite mass density (which decreases over time due to expansion).

So, which loon are you? It's not clear which reasonable model you think is impossible because reasons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:46:53 2018 No.9582317 >>9582307 rude

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:47:12 2018 No.9582318 >>9582314 So how do I build an MRI machine using your theory, MOSFET Dave?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:47:29 2018 No.9582320 >>9582317 kill yourself moron

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:47:33 2018 No.9582321 >>9582310 >If anything, quantum theory should teach us that there are so many idiots who can't control misuse of data and conclusions and separate ideas from facts and discern lies based on non truths from the fact actually gathered... ftfy

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:48:25 2018 No.9582322 >>9582315 >https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0502/0502007.pdf Using special relativity when working with gravity? WTF am I reading?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:49:15 2018 No.9582325 >>9582316 No it wouldn't and it doesn't - matyter doesn't dictate the edge of space, light doesn't, and there is no known containment of the laws we see around us you're living in a fucking fantasy in your mind

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:49:26 2018 No.9582326 >>9582321 So, you also dispute quantum physics too? Goody. Please explain the Bell inequality tests. This should be funny.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:50:09 2018 No.9582328

Okay mang I'm gonna blow ur mind.
There have been some sort of posts here that try to turn it around like the speed of light determines metre but that's actually right mang. Think about it, the speed of light is ridiculously fast mk? But think about all that is required at a micro and macroscopic level for us to exist. Certain things just need to be a certain speed. We are between things that happen billions of times a second and once every billion years. No matter what speed you choose for light, things will need to remain in proportion. We get caught up in the numbers, but light will always be a constant. If light were twice as fast everything else would be too and there'd be no discernible difference

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:50:37 2018 No.9582330 >>9582325 Well, I'm in good company with the whole of academia. How's your tabloid physics going? Make any breakthrough discoveries that led to new technologies, new predictions about the cosmos, etc.?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:51:29 2018 No.9582332

>>9582310
You don't need citations. It's very simple.

Space can't bend. Nothing on the planet shows this. Nothing. It's even paradoxical to imply that the Earth warps space yet the warped space is the cause of gravity.

And you can't measure something outside of your reference frame, because it would all existence in the same reference frame regardless.

That's all there is to it.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:52:26 2018 No.9582334 >>9582332 Uhh-huh. Come back when you learn to science and get some evidence. Otherwise, gb2 /x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:52:32 2018 No.9582335 >>9582318 Maybe you should look into that. Go look at the arguments for X-rays 100 years back.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:54:15 2018 No.9582336 >>9582322 >too retarded to even understand the introduction >acts like he is the science god You are embarassing yourself.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:54:50 2018 No.9582337

I'm going to bed. Last remarks.

@Scientist - unlike almost everyone on /sci/, you actually seem to know your shit. I figure you're probably a PhD candidate or post doc at a reasonable institution. Keep on keeping on, and I hope you aren't in a timezone where this stupid thread kept you up late.

@MOSFET Dave - you are a Time-Cube tier retard and no amount of reasoning can cure the cancer that infects your brain

@Undergrad Philosophy Guy - get a hobby that doesn't involve harassing scientists with your inconsistent, babby-level version of Reductivism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:55:36 2018 No.9582338 >>9582332 gravity is warped space, not the cause of mass is the cause of gravity/warped space >And you can't measure something outside of your reference frame why not? just take a pen and paper and do it that last part of what you said makes no sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:55:47 2018 No.9582340 >>9582334 I want you to get this. How would you personally measure a difference in time as a physical property and not metrical one between two points/planets?

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:56:19 2018 No.9582343

>>9582336
Why should I read a paper that uses special relativity when discussing gravity? Special relativity is specifically valid only in situations where gravity is negligible. You need general relativity when gravity is important.

>>9582337
>@Scientist - unlike almost everyone on /sci/, you actually seem to know your shit. I figure you're probably a PhD candidate or post doc at a reasonable institution. Keep on keeping on, and I hope you aren't in a timezone where this stupid thread kept you up late.

Thanks, but nowhere near that good. Just someone who passed undergrad and pursues some of this as a hobby. I'm just a programmer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:56:29 2018 No.9582345 >>9582326 I dispute your aka the common given interpretations, that's for sure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:56:31 2018 No.9582346 File: 15 KB, 300x300, 7543797656.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9582320

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:57:18 2018 No.9582349 >>9582343 >Thanks, but nowhere near that good. Just someone who passed undergrad and pursues some of this as a hobby. I'm just a programmer. Never too late to go for the doctorate, bro. Academia sucks but the future of the world is in research

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:57:40 2018 No.9582350 >>9582330 >presents 2 ideas neither of which he knows to endorse >gets told >claims he a good idiot with company

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:57:51 2018 No.9582351

>>9582338
Everything is in the same frame. Even if that was the case, you're still measuring the motion of something not in the same time frame as the same as yours, you would be able to even conceptualize of two things being in different time frames let alone measure it.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 04:59:05 2018 No.9582353

>>9582340
I'm sorry. I don't understand the difference that you're trying to draw. I'm a pragmatist - I deal with observables. Relativity predicts that two observers who are moving at different speeds will generally disagree on whether two events are simultaneous or not. They can use laser range finders to determine the distance to the events, and they can calculate when the events happened according to the travel time of light, and they will arrive at different answers for the question "did the two events happen at the same time?". Of course, they can both compute what the other will see and compute.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 04:59:31 2018 No.9582354 >>9582343 Are you retarded or something? It mentions special relativity in context of GPS, not gravity. It says multiple times in the text that both effects of special and general relativity can be explained by their model.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:01:48 2018 No.9582360 >>9582351 we can definitely measure it, that's what math is for you're a retard if you think that just because you can't conceptualize it you can't measure it

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:03:36 2018 No.9582364

>>9582353
The event can only just 'happen', the observers don't matter. This is a tree in the woods and no one to hear it problem.

Their experience may differ (explosion reaching them, light reaching them, sound reaching them) but the even hasn't happend twice nor have the two observers witnessed two events.

It's just one event in the now.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:06:03 2018 No.9582368 >>9582364 And that's simply not the way that the world works. We know this, because the evidence says so. >>9582354 Yes, I might be retarded.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:07:48 2018 No.9582371

>>9582360
You can't measure it, it's impossible.
That's without any of it making sense.

If light is constant, then everything is in the same frame anyway because you are always measuring against that.

And then you have people talking about Atomic Clocks and GPS satellite CPUs. Both are electrical.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:09:17 2018 No.9582373 >>9582368 There is no evidence, it's all just postulate. What's the evidence? A story about lightning and trains? Clock cycles in a circuit? There's no evidence of it Anon. I'm trying to make you understand that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:12:01 2018 No.9582379 >>9582371 you don't know an ounce of physics >If light is constant, then everything is in the same frame anyway because everything moves at lightspeed, right? pointless to argue

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:12:41 2018 No.9582380

There is something called "Quantum Physics" that is taking a huge dump on Einstein. Spacetime obviosuly doesn't exist the way he proposes, or else particles should bend it just the way bigger objects do and thus his equations would make sense in the quantum world, too. They don't, therefore it doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:13:45 2018 No.9582383 >>9582379 But if the idea that light is constant then it can always be measured against. That invalidates everything else moving because you could always just make it in the same frame.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:14:29 2018 No.9582384

>>9582151
>>frame dragging
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
LOLOLOLOL

" A review by a panel of 15 experts commissioned by NASA recommended against extending the data analysis phase beyond 2008. They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".[32] "

NOW COMES THE DATA MASSAGING AND IGNORING THE GYROSCOPIC ERROR FAR THAT EXCEEDS DETECTION LEVELS, A NEAR UNIVERSAL OCCURRENCE IN MODERN SCIENCE

" NASA funding and sponsorship of the program ended on 30 September 2008, but GP-B secured alternative funding from King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia[6] that enabled the science team to continue working at least through December 2009. On 29 August 2008, the 18th meeting of the external GP-B Science Advisory Committee was held at Stanford to report progress. The ensuing SAC report to NASA states:

The progress reported at SAC-18 was truly extraordinary and we commend the GPB team for this achievement. This has been a heroic effort, and has brought the experiment from what seemed like a state of potential failure, to a position where the SAC now believes that they will obtain a credible test of relativity, even if the accuracy does not meet the original goal. "

OH LOOK AT THAT ! MANY MAN YEARS OF HEROIC EFFORT ! AKA DISCARD AND MASSAGE AND MAKE UP SOME LIES ! YOU WOULDN'T CRITICIZE YEARS OF HARD WORK WOULD YOU?
WELL.... ?
HOW ABOUT A COUPLE MORE YEARS...?

" The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[33] "
LMAO AND YEARS LATER AGAIN IT'S ALL TRUE AND GOOD ! AMAZING ! SCIENCE !
>IT'S TOTAL BULLSHIT BUT A THOUSAND TARDS WILL CITE IT

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:14:46 2018 No.9582385

>>9582373
So, what. Are you proposing that the Galilean transformation is the correct transformation for switching inertial coordinate frames? What about Maxwell's equations? Do you even understand the horrific consequences of Maxwell's equations plus coordinate shifts before Lorentz transformations? Special relativity is nothing more than taking the Lorentz transformation at face value.

There's also plenty of direct observational evidence for GR, whether it's the direct detection of gravity waves, or the detection of rate of inspiral of neutron stars, or the Cassini spacecraft.
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/2249/saturn-bound-spacecraft-tests-einsteins-theory/

>>9582383
You should bother to at least understand the theory before you deny it.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:20:42 2018 No.9582394

LMAO - ONLY A FUCKING RETARD DOESN'T GET IT
" An experiment by Italian scientists using data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft, currently en route to Saturn, confirms Einstein's theory of general relativity with a precision that is 50 times greater than previous measurements. "

OH YES, OH YES THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:21:48 2018 No.9582396 >>9582394 ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:29:19 2018 No.9582406 >>9582385 There are no gravity waves.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:29:56 2018 No.9582407 >>9582406 LIGO and the observation of inspiral of neutron stars says otherwise.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:37:47 2018 No.9582413

>>9582407
Dude, spacetime doesn't exist. Stop argueing so much that it does. It might be able to explain some things relatively well, but so does newtonian physics. We KNOW spacetime doesn't exist because particles are not showing any signs of interacting with it.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:40:29 2018 No.9582419 >>9582413 Except when particles do interact with it, such as the inspiral of neutron stars, gravitational lensing, Cassini, GPS satellites, etc.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:46:09 2018 No.9582426

>>9582419
Gravitational lensing is light being pulled into the gravity field of a massive object and has nothing to do with relativity. And no, a clock in a gps satellite is not a particle. And the particles that are making the clock up are NOT interacting with spacetime. We know this, because we can observe and study them. Therefore, it is impossible that spacetime exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:47:01 2018 No.9582427 >>9582413 >newtonian physics. Doesn't even explain Mercury

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:47:25 2018 No.9582428 >>9582426 And the inspiral of neutron star pairs? >>9582427 Good call. Forgot that for a sec.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:48:32 2018 No.9582433 File: 720 KB, 350x200, runqvist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9582384 >>9582394

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:52:52 2018 No.9582438

>>9582427
I'm not saying relativity isn't better at explaining things than newtonian physics. I'm saying that the underlaying assumption of relativity (gravity being created by massive objects interacting with "spacetime") is definetely wrong, because particles have mass, but they don't show any signs of bending spacetime. Therefore spacetime can not exist.

Also, I would hold my horses when it comes to experiments "proofing" relativity. There is a nobel prize to be won for somebody who does it first, so there are a lot of scientist who are kind of "forcing" the evidence, because they want to be the one.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:54:09 2018 No.9582439 >>9582438 >because particles have mass, but they don't show any signs of bending spacetime. Again, inspiral of neutron star pairs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:57:47 2018 No.9582446 >>9582439 A neutron star is not a particle.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 05:58:21 2018 No.9582447 >>9582446 It's made of particles. What's your point?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 05:59:56 2018 No.9582450 File: 241 KB, 878x827, GEN REL CASSINI FUCKING JOKE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] page after page after page of data massaging, corrections, and uncertainties, as well as discarded and ignored errors, the bullshit ride never ends

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:00:09 2018 No.9582451 >>9582447 Hey, you're right. You have an asshole and you are an asshole.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:01:36 2018 No.9582453 >>9582438 >don't show any signs of bending spacetime wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:01:53 2018 No.9582454

>>9582447
That's the point you programming monkey, the particles that are making everything up DO NOT bend spacetime, therefore IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IT EXISTS. Is that so hard to understand? Just because a model happens to work somewhat well it doesn't mean it's true. There are aether theories that are working pretty much as well as relativity, they are just not so mathematically elegant.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:04:11 2018 No.9582463

>>9582454
>Just because a model happens to work somewhat well it doesn't mean it's true.
No, actually, that's exactly what it means. If a model works well, then it's true. That's science 101.

> That's the point you programming monkey, the particles that are making everything up DO NOT bend spacetime, therefore IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IT EXISTS.

We observe a change in the orbit time of neutron star pairs that exactly as predicted ala the emission of gravity waves. This is quite strong evidence for general relativity. How are you dismissing this?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:08:34 2018 No.9582471

>>9582463
>No, actually, that's exactly what it means. If a model works well, then it's true. That's science 101

You should change your tripcode because obviously you didn't even understand basic scientific method.

>This is quite strong evidence for general relativity. How are you dismissing this?

General relativity works well for some phenomena in the universe, but it doesn't work well for a whole lot of others. For example, we need "dark matter" if using general relativity, because otherwise the movement of galaxies is not making any sense.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:10:06 2018 No.9582475 File: 148 KB, 750x568, gen rel cassini more errors more excuses.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9582450 literally page after page after page

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:10:20 2018 No.9582476 >>9582471 >"dark matter" if using general relativity nah, plain old newton does the same

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:11:08 2018 No.9582478 >>9582453 moron>>9582384

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:11:24 2018 No.9582479

>>9582471
>You should change your tripcode because obviously you didn't even understand basic scientific method.

Pretty sure that's you. This is Popper 101.

>General relativity works well for some phenomena in the universe, but it doesn't work well for a whole lot of others. For example, we need "dark matter" if using general relativity, because otherwise the movement of galaxies is not making any sense.
Yea, and? We know we don't have the complete picture. We know that quantum mechanics and general relativity don't play nice, and therefore we know that there's something else.

Newtonian gravity doesn't help here.

However, it's almost certainly true that in whatever we discover in the future, GR will come out as a limiting case, just like classical physics comes out as a limiting case of quantum mechanics, and just like Newtonian gravity comes out as a limiting case of GR.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:17:59 2018 No.9582492

>>9582476
You can literally explain everything with Newton by increasing the amount of dark matter and energy. Relativity needs dark matter, too, for gravitational lensing. For Relativity to make sense you need to postulate that around 96% of the universe's total mass and energy is "dark", for classical Newton that would be even closer to 100%. Relativity is better than Newton, bot both theories are pretty bad.

That being said, the discussion was not about if Newton was more right than Einstein, it was about if spacetime exists, and we can tell with 100% certainty that it doesn't because, elemantary particles are not interacting with it.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:19:10 2018 No.9582495

>>9582492
>we can tell with 100% certainty that it doesn't because, elemantary particles are not interacting with it.
But yes they are. We know neutron star pairs are "interacting" with it, and we know neutron star pairs are made out of "elementary particles".

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:20:07 2018 No.9582497

>>9582463
>We observe a change in the orbit time of neutron star pairs that exactly as predicted ala the emission of gravity waves.
LOL
another massive wave of bullshit - years, literally years of calibration to attempt to detect "gravity wave movement" perhaps at most 10x the diameter of an atoms nucleus....

LMMFFA ! HOLY FUCKSTICKS THE LIES ARE INCREDIBLE

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:20:14 2018 No.9582498 >>9582450 >>9582475 >>9582433

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:21:18 2018 No.9582500 >>9582497 >tiny mind blown

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:21:49 2018 No.9582501 >>9582497 No, we're talking about detecting the change in periodicity of pulsars in neutron star pairs. Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:24:53 2018 No.9582503

>>9582497
What's blown are the claimed facts, because no data extracted is data, it's all noise. It takes these fucksticks years to try to set their machine to zero.
Of course they never achieve that, because one cannot measure the microcunt width of their you know what....

It's a big fat money sucking LIE, because there's no DATA, there's 100% error factor and that's it

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:25:42 2018 No.9582504

>>9582495
You must be some kind of super-retard. Just because you happen to be able to explain one natural phenomenon with a modell it does not mean it is true. You can explain some things in cosmology with Newton, and some not. You can explain slightly more things in cosmology with Einstein, and some still not. Therefore, it is implied that both are having wrong assumptions in their models. For Einstein we know this as a fact, because his assumption of gravity being created by curvature of an imaginary spacetime can not be observed on particle level. Therefore, it is 100% wrong. You can still use the model if it is really the best thing you got. But it is still wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:26:52 2018 No.9582505 >>9582501 hey dumbass - when the orbital period changes the claim is a gravity wave is emitted, latest claims are a few will collide in like 320 million years - imagine the "emission" power ... LOL >ERROR +- 30,000 %

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:27:57 2018 No.9582508

>>9582504
>can not be observed on particle level.
>Therefore, it is 100% wrong.
You lost me. Not sure why we should obey such a ridiculous standard.

>>9582505
> hey dumbass - when the orbital period changes the claim is a gravity wave is emitted, latest claims are a few will collide in like 320 million years - imagine the "emission" power ... LOL
That is the prediction, yes. What's your point?

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:29:21 2018 No.9582512 >>9582505 >>ERROR +- 30,000 % Oh, missed the greentext. I'm not sure where you're getting that number. The data on pulsars for gravity waves is quite strong.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:30:38 2018 No.9582514

>>9582503
Yeah, the way the experiment works is basically this:

>know what you usual noise looks like
>look at things that look different from your usual noise
>declare everything as noise that doesn't look like the thing you are looking for
>wait until something shows up that looks like the thing you are looking for and publicize your "groundbreaking success"

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:30:58 2018 No.9582515
File: 21 KB, 806x234, LIGO THE BIG FUCKING JOKE OF A LIE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

hey guyz... it's been 13 fucking years ya know
>god dammit, funding renewal at congress again...
>holy shit boyz, wut we gonna do ?
TAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:32:33 2018 No.9582519 >>9582508 >Not sure why we should obey such a ridiculous standard. Okay, I'm trying to dumb it down for you >theory says that if A happens, B results >we observe that if A happens, C results >therefore theory is not true

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:34:12 2018 No.9582524 >>9582515 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:35:24 2018 No.9582526

>>9582519
But we don't have any such contradicting evidence. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. GR doesn't make any prediction that we should be able to see any such thing with our current equipment - assuming I understand you correctly. What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:36:21 2018 No.9582529 >>9582508 >hey dumbass, you don't know what I'm talking about

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:37:25 2018 No.9582530

>>9582529
That's correct. I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that there is no such particular evidence which contradicts GR, and so you're bullshiting about non-existent evidence, or you're applying an invalid evidentiary standard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:38:00 2018 No.9582533 >>9582515 >The data on pulsars for gravity waves is quite strong. LMMFAO ! HO SHIT, THIS BOY IS A BAG OF SHIT !

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:39:02 2018 No.9582536 >>9582530 really go fuck yourself, you haven't a clue

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:39:56 2018 No.9582537 >>9582515 So, back to the tabloid conspiracy theories where everyone is faking data and part of the conspiracy. >>9582536 I believe you need to go back to /x/.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:41:31 2018 No.9582542

>>9582526
>GR doesn't make any prediction that we should be able to see any such thing with our current equipment

Yes it does, according to relativity we should see gravity at quantum level, because elementary particles have mass. We don't. And it's also not because our "equipment" is not good enough. We can observe particles fairly well, and there is no gravity. Therefore gravity being a curvature in "spacetime" is definetely wrong. Otherwise there would be observable gravity at quantum level. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:43:15 2018 No.9582546 >>9582542 Citations please. Give me an experiment, or a paper, or even a wikipedia link. Something. What is the particular experimental subatomic apparatus that, according to you, should show gravitational effects, but doesn't?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:44:33 2018 No.9582547 >>9582495 you're a fucking joke we don't even know if were looking at "neutron star pairs" nor if they even exist

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:44:40 2018 No.9582548 >>9582546 You are so stupid it hurts. Go on and use relativity on quantum level and see how far it gets you. There is a reason why it is not considered to be a "theory of everything".

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:47:20 2018 No.9582551

>>9582548
So, not going to be able to provide an example?

>>9582547
And yet, the rate of change of periodicity matches perfectly the predictions of GR. Among many, many other correspondence between GR the model and observations of reality. One or two might be coincidence. All of them cannot be coincidence. That's the heart of science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:49:09 2018 No.9582553 >>9582551 There are no examples for relativity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:49:18 2018 No.9582554 >>9582551 >So, not going to be able to provide an example? A particle has insanely high energies, yet no gravitational pull. Explain this using GR.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:52:20 2018 No.9582559 >>9582551 LOL and yet radio waves and xrays too 13 years of failure>you solid data !~ >observations of reality xrays and radio waves we guess at location and distance

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:53:07 2018 No.9582560

>>9582553
Someone earlier made the claim that there is a particular experimental apparatus that should show gravitational effects according to GR, but doesn't. I'm asking for details on that claim.

>>9582554
How insanely high? Like the best modern particle accelerator ala 125 GeV?
= 2.00272e-8 J
The mass of that amount of energy is
2.22832738e-25 kg

So, it has a gravitational pull, but we don't have apparatus that is sensitive enough to detect it.

>>9582559
Could you go back to /x/ with your tabloid conspiracy theories please?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:54:52 2018 No.9582564

>>9582551
>the rate of change of periodicity matches perfectly the predictions of GR

for certain size, and a certain distance apart, both of which are unknowns.. have the model then plug in the parameters to have the lack of data confirm formed bias- EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:56:01 2018 No.9582569 >>9582560 you're an idiot, wrong so many times you should leave

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:57:03 2018 No.9582570 >>9582564 So, which is it? You're smarter than all cosmologists and scientists? Or they're all part of a vast international conspiracy?

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:57:34 2018 No.9582571

>>9582560
>How insanely high? Like the best modern particle accelerator ala 125 GeV?
= 2.00272e-8 J
The mass of that amount of energy is
2.22832738e-25 kg
So, it has a gravitational pull, but we don't have apparatus that is sensitive enough to detect it.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. And like every computer monkey, you are stupid, yet smug. Therefore, I don't have the nerve to explain basic quantum physics to a literal brainlet. Stick to writing Java code, programming monkey.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 06:57:59 2018 No.9582572 >>9582551 you want to tell me how the size of the neutron stars and their distance apart is known sonny boy ? you're a fucking walking idiot tabloid - we've got perhaps radio waves and maybe some xrays you fucking moron, nothing else

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 06:58:54 2018 No.9582574

>>9582572
>you want to tell me how the size of the neutron stars and their distance apart is known sonny boy ?
Mass is relatively easy. Stellar evolution puts some pretty tight bounds. And isn't distance just a simple function of the period?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:01:25 2018 No.9582581 >>9582570 answer the questions asshole, and you bet I'm smarter than 99%, no doubt about that

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:02:13 2018 No.9582583 >>9582581 Which questions?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:04:57 2018 No.9582587 >>9582570 I think a lot of people are just misguided. People get very hostile when you call out certain theories because their livelihood is on the back of it.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:06:08 2018 No.9582590

>>9582587
>I think a lot of people are just misguided. People get very hostile when you call out certain theories because their livelihood is on the back of it.
But that's just not true. Every single one of them is desperate to overturn the whole enterprise, to find something that contradicts known theory. That's how you win Nobel prizes, fame, and money.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:06:54 2018 No.9582592

>>9582574
LMAO ! "STELLAR EVOLUTION"
"TIGHT BOUNDS"
>NOT A FUNCTION

Once again, the missing data is conveniently created out of thin air, then, the many more numerous unknown variables can be applied in those necessary sots for a calculated and predetermined outcome.

In your BULLSHIT, the size(by) and position is already known !

Fuck we might as well throw out the radio waves and xrays too, we already know what those should be... hire the shoop artist make a pretty picture for the fucktard and away you go

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:07:39 2018 No.9582594 >>9582592 Uh huh. Don't believe stellar evolution theories either. Is there anything mainstream that you do accept?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:08:40 2018 No.9582595 >>9582590 Nah you can't go too far outside of the theories. If I tell someone there are no black holes as we know it, I get stares. There's no, "Hmm, well leads you to believe that Anon?"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:10:55 2018 No.9582600 >>9582594 Shitposting. Also toilet masturbating to the reflection of my own anus in the bowl water.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:11:10 2018 No.9582601

>>9582595
>If I tell someone there are no black holes as we know it, I get stares. There's no, "Hmm, well leads you to believe that Anon?"
Yea, and? If you say the same thing about the age of the Earth, or evolution, etc., you'll get the same blank stares. However, if you present the evidence and proper argument, then you will win them over. For example, look at the battles that Einstein and the rest had to do in order to win people over to quantum theory. The paradigm shift was huge, but it was done, and Einstein was awarded a Nobel prize for his work in quantum theory.

It seems that your problem is that you don't have the evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:13:43 2018 No.9582604 >>9582592 HEY I'VE GOT EVIDENCE ! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ! >what cha got >13 guesses from other guesses guessed and been guessin, 1 small data repeat seen for 4.5 milliseconds 1.5 years ago... BINARY !

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:16:10 2018 No.9582607

>>9582594

You can make up data fella, that's the point. It's all made up, after you make that up, you use made up to make up more, after you've made up 3 more made up layers, you tell me there's big solid proof.... with one actual piece of data - a pulsing xray signal

Sorry you're so fucking stupid.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:16:50 2018 No.9582609

>>9582407
>LIGO

Imagine a religious cult praying to a sea god. The cult has gotten a prophecy that one day the sea god will send them a proof of his existence by sending a very specific looking wave to their coast. The cult now observes the sea for decades, until finally a wave shows up that looks like the one from the prophecy. So obviously, they have now prooven that sea god exists.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:18:08 2018 No.9582610

>>9582607
So, let's get back to basics. Do you think the data on the orbit of Mercury is faked?

>>9582609
That's a wonderful story which has no relation to the current conversation. Bring evidence for your massive conspiracy, or shut up about it already.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:22:31 2018 No.9582617 >>9582607 >>9582610 To expand: The orbit of Mercury. The path of the Cassini probe. Several of the other outer solar system probe probably verify GR over Newtonian gravity too. Do you think these data are faked?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:24:12 2018 No.9582620 LIGO detection, the gravity waves - neutron stars swirlie whirlie ! " the collision happened 130 million years ago " Yep there you have it - LOL boy you've got to be one dumb muther fucker

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:27:04 2018 No.9582625

>>9582601
I don't know what the deal was with Einstein. Because it seems Relativity and the sort wasn't his last theory, and it also seems he didn't really fully believe it, but it was pushed regardless.

So now where are we a century later? We're at a dead end with science, especially electrical science.
All the experiments of that era and before are bygone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:27:31 2018 No.9582628 >>9582620 oh let's not forget, it made gold and platinum ! whoo hoooooooooooooooo ! ice comets babie !

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:28:09 2018 No.9582629 >>9582625 You're not an electric universe idiot, are you?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:29:08 2018 No.9582631 >>9582625 historians believe his wife did the real heavy lifting... LOL - isn't that wonderful

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:30:26 2018 No.9582632 >>9582610 There is no conspiracy, just scientists looking for confirmation bias. Also, gravitational lensing actually can't be explained by Einstein's theories. In reality it is much stronger, than what Einstein would predict.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:32:20 2018 No.9582635

>>9582632
Oh, that's a good point. We can also talk about simple gravitational lensing of stars during eclipses of the sun by the moon. That's another huge data point where the data is indisputably not faked and also is indisputably compatible with GR and not compatible with Newtonian gravity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:34:51 2018 No.9582640 >>9582635 Except those measurements are not really that precise. Generally, Newton is 50% off, Einstein 20%.

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:36:04 2018 No.9582642 >>9582640 >Einstein 20%. That number is pulled directly out of your ass. I call shenanigans.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:43:36 2018 No.9582651

>>9581858
>Aether, or whatever you are calling it, be it ether, aether, ather, or some variation of that, does not exist.

so zero point
dark matter
dark energy
the higgs field

all don't exist... ?

The best gravity experimenter I've ever seen comment, one with successful experiments, claims/ aka believes they drew the energy from what has been called the zero point field - superconducting high speed rotating dual layers ceramics ring strengthened and electrically pulse charged producing cooper pairs - upon collapse of the field a "gravity wave" was generated - improvements resulted in targeted effects at distances of one mile - claims of superluminal speed up to x64 also present, capable of moving object and penetrating concrete at distance

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:45:07 2018 No.9582655

>>9582651
>a "gravity wave" was generated - improvements resulted in targeted effects at distances of one mile
>claims of superluminal speed up to x64 also present
>capable of moving object and penetrating concrete at distance

You seem lost.
>>>/x/

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:47:40 2018 No.9582660

>>9582640
indisputably....
ohh man....

I was "shown" other "solid indisputable" (words commenting on well known histories) evidence that turns out to be complete fucking frauds - claims of perfection are always suspect - a "true believer" of everything he is told so long as "authority" is felt.
When years later the fraud is finally admitted, cite it anyway...

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:48:41 2018 No.9582661 >>9582655 LOL claims the word forgotten by fucktard

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:48:43 2018 No.9582662 >>9582660 >>>/x/ >>>/b/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:52:01 2018 No.9582668 >>9582655 >so zero point >dark matter >dark energy >the higgs field all don't exist... ? WELL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASSHOLE

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:53:03 2018 No.9582671 >>9582662 ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASSHOLE

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:54:04 2018 No.9582674 >>9582662 yeah we'll see if you're all dust as before

>>	Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 07:54:11 2018 No.9582675 >>9582668 The evidence is strong that they exist. I'm not sure why you're asking such questions about what I believe when the particular answers are quite obvious. >>9582671 The earlier post >>9582660 doesn't have any questions.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:58:07 2018 No.9582685

Einstein generally works better than Newton, because for "mid-sized" objects its math implies a bigger gravitational pull, than Newton does, however the bigger the object becomes, the more off Einstein is, too. When it comes to describing the movement of galaxies, Einstein is just as bad as Newton.

The real explanation is probably something along the lines of "graviton" particles increasing the mass of an object exponentially to the number of gravitons, not linearally. This way you can explain why gravity is so weak at the qunatum level and becomes stronger and stronger the bigger you go. No need for dark matter then, and it also explains why Einstein gives you the illusion of being "more correct" than Newton.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 07:59:18 2018 No.9582690 >>9582675 that's what I thought, a nothing boy again

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Tue Mar 13 08:02:54 2018 No.9582692

>>9582685
The Bullet Cluster shows that you're wrong. We need dark matter to explain the Bullet Cluster. The Bullet Cluster is the aftermath of a collision of two galaxies. The stars of the galaxies pass through each other for the most part, because they're point-like masses. Most of the normal matter of the galaxies is in the interstellar dust, which we can see, and which collided with the dust from the other galaxy, and remains in between the two galaxies. Thus, most of the typical matter is at the collision point, and not on either side of the collision with the stars.

Yet, gravitational lensing analysis shows that most of the matter is with the stars. Dark matter. It's some new type of particle (e.g. quantum field) which is not one of the normal everyday particles (e.g. fields) that you learn about in physics. We don't know what it is, but it must be there to explain this data. Unless you can create a theory of gravity where the "force" of gravity comes from somewhere other than where the matter is.

>>9582690
?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 08:10:53 2018 No.9582708 >>9582692 I'm not talking to you, you are scientifically illiterate.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 11:41:19 2018 No.9582935

Yo Scientist, thanks for actually working things through and providing points of evidence and the various theories behind your thinking. I doubt you'll be able to convince mr schizo of anything other than what the voices in his head are telling him considering the complete lack of arguments on his part, but for anyone else on the fringe or just curious this is a treasure trove of insight, genuinely. No idea if you'll see this, but thanks.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 12:16:19 2018 No.9582972

>>9582083
oh, you mean why the a in

del^2b=-1/c^2(d^2B/dt^2)

is actually the speed of the EM wave? no problem.

First find the general solution to the wave equation, which is easily done and gets you something Ae^iwt+Be^-iwt with w, A and B dependent on boundary conditions and initial conditions. This is obviously a fourier transform, now change variables to q=x+at and r=x-t, this is a bit longer but still basic chain rule calculus, you will get d^2B/dqdr=0

general solution is D'alemberts

B=1/2(B0[x-ct]+B0[x+ct])

where B0 is the initial time independent function B(0)

F'(x)=F(x+a) is the translation operator, a=ct, the amount you translate x per unit of t is called speed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 12:27:35 2018 No.9582988 File: 245 KB, 600x781, 1507883834597.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9582972 c*

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:10:29 2018 No.9583377 >>9582935 You're welcome

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:15:29 2018 No.9583387 >>9582316 mass is increasing dumbass

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:20:37 2018 No.9583401

" LIGO started listening for gravitational waves back in 2002, but, after eight years, it was shut down without recording even one unambiguous gravitational wave detection. But that was okay: Initial LIGO, as the first phase of operations was called, was, in a sense, just for practice. Last September, the real games began. "

LMAO ! Yes ! Let the games begin !
> oh no, I've just farted in the lab again

"What Kind of Noise Annoys an Interferometer?

But it gets more complicated. Everything from passing trucks to distant ocean waves can shake the mirrors, causing “noise” that muddies the measurements. "

LMMFAO ! THIS IS DATA, NOT ERRORS !

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:24:46 2018 No.9583411

"We're on solid ground ground here !"
" Still, picking out the tiny signal expected from a gravitational wave from mundane background vibrations is like trying to hear the crickets chirping at an AC/DC concert. The trick is to isolate LIGO’s mirrors from external shaking as perfectly as possible. To do that, Advanced LIGO has a completely revamped isolation system that exploits seven different layers of technology to effectively “float” the optics. For LIGO’s first run, the mirrors were hung from simple pendulums. This time around, the mirrors are heavier, and each one is suspended from welded glass fibers that hang from a quadruple pendulum—that is, a pendulum that hangs from a pendulum that hangs from a pendulum that hangs from a pendulum. "
LMMFAO

" To handle lower-frequency tremors, Advanced LIGO is using a new, “active” isolation system that senses and corrects for vibrations in real-time. Outside the LIGO vacuum chamber, a hydraulic system neutralizes the slow swaying coming from distant effects like tides. Inside the vacuum chamber, another set of seismometers triggers two stages of magnetic actuators that counteract mid-frequency vibrations. This active isolation system also keeps in check the Achilles’ heel of the pendulum system: its inconvenient tendency to resonate at certain frequencies, making the internal vibrations stronger instead of weaker. "

ROFLMAO - WE HAVE SOLID DATA ....

IT'S A FUCKING JOKE FELLAS, FACE IT, BREATHING MEANS FAILURE, FROM MILES AWAY

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:28:34 2018 No.9583418

>>9581591
>>How can you predict something 100% of the time when you don't understand it?
>you... can't...

Sure you can today ! You know what you want, the data errors are so enormous in your "scientific test", the equipment so tweaked for years on end, the results so elusive for a decade or more - you finally have the proper will to massage in your result... AND YOU DO.... THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT COMES, AND THE MONEY FLOWS ONCE AGAIN...

Modern science is ERRORS converted to the exact data you need, which is extremely miniscule and undetectable - but of course, your insane decade of half a billion dollars makes up for that fact

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:35:58 2018 No.9583430 >>9582419 >lensing true or not true ? " Einstein predicted parallel gravity lensing where light rays bend towards the gravity field to create two images in the same orientation, however evidence shows lensing is mirrored "

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:47:45 2018 No.9583458

>>9582514
Yes isn't it wonderful how these faggot claim they made predictions that came true, thus it proves their theory is correct - then you go look at their proof experiment and it's a decade long failure, the data is hidden, the answer they get is a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of billionth of a cunt hair twisting a tenth of a billionth of an arc at a trillionth of a degree cosine to parallel root x ...

Checking the data requires 35 years without the 600 million dollar ultra cunt hair - so you can't check it. It can't be duplicated. Ever.

Anonymous Tue Mar 13 16:57:13 2018 No.9583470

what is gravitational lensing

> A DISTORTED, MUDDY, WARPED, PITTED, OUT OF ROUND, DOT FILTERED, FUCKING FUNNY MIRROR FOR HUBBLE

The miracle is, the assholes today claim great honor and evidence and confirmed theories from their shit view through garbage distortion...

shoopers take care of the rest - YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN AN ACTUAL IMAGE FROM HUBBLE, NOT ONCE IN YOUR LIFE

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:26:01 2018 No.9583528 ITT conspiracy brainlet yells out his retarded conspiracies to convince himself that his delusions are real

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 17:56:38 2018 No.9583585 >>9583528 dumb shit uninformed loser faggot doesn't know anything except what the overlords fed down his stupid sheephead https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=p5c1XoL1KFs

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 19:02:12 2018 No.9583738 >>9580808 > And god said > " let there be light" > and there was light that is your answer. Just because.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 13 20:09:35 2018 No.9583870 >>9580808 Excuse me, I requested that speed at the Simulation Conference. The reason being, having signed up to be inserted, I needed about 7 minutes to make it to the bunker securely before the solar flare hit. Now you know.

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 ]