/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15505338
relativity
Gravitational waves
Implications of his theories

funny facts
Why did Einstein didn't wear socks?
Why Einstein Wore Shoes Without Socks | The Voice Of Fashion
When he was a boy, Einstein's big toe regularly pushed a hole into his sock. He found it uncomfortable and irritating. Despite the fact that he lived in central Europe where winter brings snow and sub-zero temperatures, he decided to dispense with socks altogether.

>>15001798
>How would it measure the acceleration of something that doesn't exist, that isn't itself? Magic? You're not answering the question. It's fine if you have no answer, just say so.
>implying the aether doesn't exist
>There's no contradiction there.
But you claimed that accelerometers define acceleration, retard.
>You asked a question as if what I said implied that. It doesn't. I didn't say malfunctioning accelerometers define anything.
You said accelerometers define acceleration
>Yes. Where's the contradiction?
Measuring and defining are different things, fucktard
>How?
Aether, perhaps. Or perhaps they won't. But either way, if there is no aether you have no way of proving or even defining what is accelerating relative to what.
>No. Time dilation is caused by relative velocity. It has nothing to do with acceleration.
According to special relativity, yes, but you have no way to prove which one has velocity
>Again, there's no contradiction there.
But it counters your previous claim that accelerometers define acceleration, retard
>What are x, y, and z?
Whatever you want them to be. The statement still holds true. For example, z could be the derivative of x, x the derivative of y, and y an algebraic function. Or z could be acceleration, x velocity, and y position. Or z could be your status as being worth having a conversation with, x your status as intelligent, and y your acknowledgement that special relativity is a hoax.

>>15001753
>How would it measure the acceleration of something else?
If it is still and the universe is accelerating then it could measure the aether's acceleration. Whether or not that actually happens is irrelevant. Accelerometers are a measurement device. They do not define anything, they just measure something. If you actually think that a measuring device can define a physical property, you are a moron.
>No, I said nothing about malfunctioning accelerometers.
But I did, because you said that accelerometers define acceleration. Are you ESL?
>I don't know what you mean by subjective. The method of measurement doesn't change what's being measured. Proper acceleration is completely physical.
Yet you said that accelerometers define acceleration.
>The land twin will experience no g-forces except gravity, while the rocket twin will experience new g-forces whenever he accelerates (such as on takeoff and when he turns around). It's not symmetric.
If the universe accelerates around someone, then that someone will experience g-forces.
>b-but then the g-force is what causes time dilation!
okay but then your theory is still wrong because Einsteinian relativity says that time is traveling slower due to velocity not due to acceleration
>You can tell whenever you change velocity via an accelerometer, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
An accelerometer is an artificial construct. It does not define physical reality, it just attempts to measure something in physical reality.
>Doesn't follow
If x is subjective to y and z is subjective to x then z is necessarily subjective to y, supertard.

>>15001737
>>15001086
Even if we just assume that it was done properly and is replicatable, all it would "prove" is that the aether doesn't behave exactly how we thought, and/or that the way light travels through the aether is not exactly what we thought. So it might mean that the "luminiferous" aether exactly as believed back in Newton's era isn't quite right, but it doesn't prove or even suggest that there is no aether.

>>15001677
Yes, popsci modern "academics" absolutely belong on /x/, because it defies explanation (and is therefore "paranormal") that such incompetence can exist among """smart""" people.
>captcha: WGJP0P
Even captcha acknowledges that mainstream "physics" is P0Psci

Because of UFO sightings

>>15001076
SUPPOSEDLY that's not what is going on. See: Delayed choice double slit experiment.
Of course, popsci tards (i.e. mainstream "physicists" and "academics) will claim this is due to timefuckery. They will claim that time is relative. They are morons. Something else is going on. No one knows for sure what exactly is going on, but the mainstream claims are wrong.

>position is relative
>therefore, velocity (which is relative to position) is relative since something that is relative to something that is relative is also itself relative
>therefore, acceleration (which is relative to velocity) is relative
>therefore, if two objects are moving relatively away from each other then are moving relatively toward each other, it is a relative statement to claim which one was accelerating and which one (if either) was still or at constant velocity
>therefore, the "solution" to the twin paradox is false
>therefore, Einsteinian relativity theory is false and the aether exists
Unironically.

>>14980327
shill

>>14980283
If there is no aether then prove the universe is not accelerating relative to me while I am still

>>14979794
>>14979800
And specifically, if there is no aether, then accelerating everything around the accelerometer is no different than accelerating the accelerometer so it should give the same reading either way. And in practice when that happens it gives a non-zero reading.

>>14979794
If there is no aether, then there is nothing to determine if the accelerometer or the rest of the universe is moving, so there isn't an answer as to what the accelerometer would do.
If there is an aether, and you accelerate everything except the accelerometer all while keeping the accelerometer stationary relative to the aether, then the accelerometer will read no acceleration

>going to college
>2022

>>14979789
An accelerometer just measures acceleration. But if there is no aether, then when I am accelerating I could argue that I am not accelerating but the rest of the universe is accelerating relative to me.

>drinking cow milk
>2022

>>14977854
College is a scam. Learning from books is over 9000 times better, unironically.
>>14977921
>College forces you to learn at peak efficiency.
lol

Just drink water and eat healthy (vegan, minimal fat/sugar/oil)

This is a terrible idea.

>>14975378
Don't take pills, fuck that. Drink water. Eat healthy (vegan food, minimal sugar/oil/fat)

>>14974744
Pleiadean?

>>14979767
By providing an objective basis for determining which frame of reference is accelerating. If there was no aether then that would be subjective.

ok

>>14978915
>There's no proof of the simulation hypothesis.
correct. Your point?

>>14978219
Same goes for bosonic string theory. Same goes for loop quantum gravity. Same goes for Einsteinian relativity theory. Same goes for any given interpretation of quantum mechanics.
>>14978370
based