/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10388418
spacetime in the cosmological sense is the stage on which things play out. not only does it have particular geometric structure, but it also reacts to the particles inhabiting in a very predictable way. it’s the manifold on which events occur, and it adheres to certain principles, as far as science goes

>>10388418
Spacetime is just one of the many bizarre conclusions that arise from the premise that the speed of light is the highest possible speed.

space is a potentiality

time isn't just the measurement of change its change itself

>>10388418
>space had no properties
Thats not true? It has a metric

>>10388418
This >>10388467
(some interval of time in seconds) x speed of light (m/s) gives you a distance vector that’s compatible with the three euclidean dimensions

>>10388418
>Space = acts on nothing, does nothing, has no properties
oh hey it's this nonsense again

>>10388684
Can you show proof to back up your claim where empty space actually does anything?

>>10388766
Not him but your understanding of spacetime as a combination of “empty space” and “human measurement of change” is retarded and if you just googled spacetime you’d have a much less horrible understanding of the concept before making this stupid thread.

>>10388766
The experimentally verified predictions of GR are the proof. The fact that you refuse to accept that is a problem with you, not with spacetime.

>>10388418
Points in spacetime are events. The mathematical structure of spacetime tells you which events can causally affect which.
Spacetime is just a map of the causal relationships between events.

>>10388418
Congrats, you're a sane individual and most of what you say is true. However, I have found that it is impossible to get this across on /sci/ for you see "/sci/' is what 4chan has denoted the "math and science" board.

Now "math" and "mathematicians" concern themselves with quantity, things that can be COUNTED. When you present the mathematician with something that cannot be counted, you obviously are going to end up with something being "counted". These come in the form of models, theories, hypothesis's. Why? Because that's what they're programmed to do. No quantity=no math.
How can someone who only deals with the counting and measuring of things actually know about the thing they're "counting"? You can count and measure anything, even something with no properties (like space or a shadow). Why? Because it doesn't actually pertain to the thing itself. It is a concept used to quantify for simplification, even if there is no actual quantity of the thing pertaining to reality. So math will not tell you how nothing acts upon something. In fact there's a specific rule that tells you that 0/1=undefined for that very reason.

Then you have modern science, which is basically Natural Philosophy on math. The need to quantify things leeched its way in but the problem still exists. What is the empirical evidence of nothing acting upon something? How do you reify what has no properties? It's absurd and can't even be experimented upon.

>>10388775
Google'd:

>In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum

Cool so it's an abstract concept that doesn't pertain to reality. Unless there's actually this magical phenomena/force in nature that controls the frequency of something, or a complete absence of everything(nothing) I fail to see how "time" or "space" is real.

>>10388902
>So math will not tell you how nothing acts upon something.
>In fact there's a specific rule that tells you that 0/1=undefined for that very reason.
>0/1
lmao

If you think 1/0 being undefined has absolutely anything to do with "nothing acting upon something" then you're beyond help.

>>10388902
>Now "math" and "mathematicians" concern themselves with quantity, things that can be COUNTED
lmao

>>10388927
>If you think 1/0 being undefined has absolutely anything to do with "nothing acting upon something" then you're beyond help.

You're right, because math has absolutely nothing to do with anything pertaining to reality.

>>10388931
Why don't you tell me what a mathematician does?

>>10388942
Okay, now show me on the doll where mathematics touched you.

>>10388952
I'm not saying math is bad. It will tell you how many apples there are and that can be useful in the real world, but it won't tell you what a fucking 'apple' is.

>>10388965
A model based on mathematics can, though.

>>10388902
>0/1=undefined
kek
>verbosity
Do you have autism by chance

>>10388968
>A model based on mathematics will explain the qualities an apple possess
Do you have an equation for love on hand by chance?

>>10388969
>seething intensifies

>>10388902
>an abstract concept that doesn’t pertain to reality
You only want to argue with people, not to understand jack shit. Leave the board retard sage goes in all categories.

>>10388976
See: neurochemistry.

>>10388981
>You only want to argue with people, not to understand jack shit. Leave the board retard sage goes in all categories.

So are you agreeing with that definition of math or are you just butthurt about it?

>>10388982
>this thing made mostly of water and proteins is a different quality than this other thing made of the same shit.

But where is the quantity you speak of?

>>10389004
>>this thing made mostly of water and proteins is a different quality than this other thing made of the same shit.
Yeah it turns out that the way you arrange things in a system matters. I know, big news.

>>10388418
Here is your redpill... "Space-time" is the "sea" of luminiferous aether, the real space and time which you said, that does nothing, act on nothing, is after all, absolute nothing, it is a ideal we cannot reach. The absolute space and time model applied when the environment is relatively static to the object living on it, but on high speed object which disturb the environment (relativistic objects) and small enough objects (quantum objects), it is not true. There would be interaction between environment and the objects, so we must consider it into our model.

Here is the final redpill. Even the luminiferous aether must exist in the environment of sub-aether particles, and so on to the infinity. The theory of everything should be disregard just like perpetual motion pipedream.

>>10389007
>Yeah it turns out that the way you arrange things in a system matters. I know, big news.

Yeah and that has nothing to do with math. It has to do with the relationship of one quality to another.
If you have two things made of the same thing yet one is in a different form. how is that related to math? Ice, steam, water are all qualities of water regardless of how you arrange them or how much more quantity of water you add to it. It's the same shit in a different form, itself against itself. No math, no useless descriptions, it's just water.
Does the water punch numbers in a calculator and turn into ice? No, it turns into ice because something else with the properties of "coldness" gave it to it.

this moron thinks math is 1+1=2 and that's it
topology is a thing, retard

Can't tell if Berserk-poster Anon is retarded, high, philosophy student or just trying to mess with us

>>10389042
>Yeah and that has nothing to do with math. It has to do with the relationship of one quality to another.
>If you have two things made of the same thing yet one is in a different form. how is that related to math? Ice, steam, water are all qualities of water regardless of how you arrange them or how much more quantity of water you add to it. It's the same shit in a different form, itself against itself. No math, no useless descriptions, it's just water.
>Does the water punch numbers in a calculator and turn into ice? No, it turns into ice because something else with the properties of "coldness" gave it to it.

Haha, wow.

>>10389032
So a sea of super rarefied gas (call it what you like, quantum fluid or ether etc) exists and permeates this entire universe?

This makes sense because light is a wave, and a wave is an effect and not an actual thing.
Therefore the source of light (sun) is disturbing the Ether and light waves are measured at the speed of light. But it's actually a rate of induction that is the speed of light.
Am I close here anon?

>>10388902
>weeb
>retarded
why did i even read the comment

>>10389062
He is a genuine retard. I seen him round here before. He doubts all the results of modern physics even though he does not know any physics. Pretty sure he is a finitist too.

>>10389062
They are highly itellegent. Is very clear and I unerstand them.
Basically, - You can't measure everything
-Things that seem different are fundamentally the same e.g. steam ice water
- you can measure a thing e.g. a human but by doing this you miss who the actual human is. So you don't Get the essence of the Apple if you measure it.

>>10390168
>you can measure a thing e.g. a human but by doing this you miss who the actual human is. So you don't Get the essence of the Apple if you measure it.
According to postmodern theory, that doesn't matter

>>10389062
He is always in these kind of threads. And always makes the same dumb uneducated arguments. I'd definitely put my money on him being genuinely this autistic. How wont budge an inch on anything, its not really worth arguing with him.

>>10389062
All of the above, though "ignorant" is more accurate than "retarded. It's one thing to know something and another to pretend you know.

>>10390146
>This makes sense because light is a wave, and a wave is an effect and not an actual thing.
>Therefore the source of light (sun) is disturbing the Ether and light waves are measured at the speed of >light. But it's actually a rate of induction that is the speed of light.
>Am I close here anon?

I almost lost all hope for this place

>>10389075
>H-ha H-ha w-wow!
Oh you got me on the ropes now!

>>10390161
>He doubts all the results of modern physics
>describing effects are results

>even though he does not know any physics
the universe is not "physical"

>doesn't believe that math can give you all the answers
>this makes him a finitist
Come on, you're just calling me out to play now.

>>10390170
This is a difficult overlapping subject where reality meets calculations that don't equate to reality. Theorys are best guesses and each theory is a bit different. Everyone draws lines in different places and uses similar words to describe different things.

>>10390161
Results of modern physics are theorys, 99% of theories are not applicable to improving any part of humanity.
The higgs boson, which has cost billions and billions to search for to find to prove an unbalanced equation to prove a version of reality, this to me is retarded and nothing applicable will come from it.

The irony of the hadron collided is also hilarious. They use electro magnetic fields to speed up particles and smash them to prove a physical type of the universe, where fields are the driving force is completely missed.

>>10390196
>the universe is not "physical"
What the fuck did he mean by this?

>>10390196
You're right. You're one of the most ignorant (and confidently ignorant) people I've ever seen here.

>>10390296
Energy beats matter. Fields rule particles. Energy and fields are not physical but control how the physical stuff works and moves.

>>10390296
Now here's a true example of an avatar fag that should be outcasted.

>>10390310
Like I said, nothing wrong with being ignorant. When you profess your ignorance as truth then be prepared to properly explain in detail what that truth is. If you leave holes and errors in it and still expect people to believe you then you're no different than Jim Jones looking for followers for Jonestown.

>>10390296
>>10390333
knots in a network

>>10390333
>Energy and fields are not physical
What a waste of trips, jesus fucking christ. Read a book, nigger
>>10390339
>nothing wrong with being ignorant
"No"

"Space-time" is not science, it is metaphysics cloaked as "science".

It uses deliberately intangible concepts, but treats them as tangible regardless, and no one bats an eye. Probably because "scientists" don't know what metaphysics is as they have been conditioned to hold philosophy in contempt, when it is the very thing being used against them under the guise of "science".

>>10390339
>stupidfuckingrabbit.jpg
I laughed

>>10390380
>deliberately intangible concepts
like what?

>>10390404
"Space" and "time" for one. Can you provide any tangible properties of either?

>>10390413
"distance" and "duration"

>>10390413
What's the matter? Didn't think of those, did you? Fucking pseud.

>>10390428
>distance
What makes distance tangible?
>duration
What makes duration tangible?

>>10388418
gravitons.

>>10390453
The fact that small children and even other mammals understand them intuitively. The fact that you can experience them directly.
>explain what tangible means pls

>>10390459
What I mean by tangible is that it has a physicality that can be experienced by our senses, and manipulated with our own physical bodies.

"Distance" isn't a tangible property of space, it is an intangible property of the physical. Measuring "distance" requires the use of a tangible object like a ruler, but all a ruler really does is measure itself.

It's the same issue with "duration", duration is an intangible property of the physical, and requires a physical object measuring itself, it is not measuring some external "thing".

>>10390470
>What I mean by tangible is that it has a physicality that can be experienced by our senses
Distance and duration both meet that criteria.
>and manipulated with our own physical bodies.
That isn't part of the meaning of "tangible" that normal people use. Nice job inventing something arbitrary so that you can """"""win."""""" Have fun not knowing anything about fuck-all, dunning-kruger.

go back to /tg/

wtf lightspeed isn't really all that's binding together reality, right?
all relativistic effects are just because we can only see in lightspeed, right?
there is actually an objective reality behind all that shit, right???

>>10390477
>Distance and duration both meet that criteria.
It is not the distance of "space", nor the duration of "time" that has physicality, it is the physical objects that have distance, it is the physical objects that have motion/time.
>That isn't part of the meaning of "tangible" that normal people use. Nice job inventing something arbitrary so that you can """"""win."""""" Have fun not knowing anything about fuck-all, dunning-kruger.
What definition are you using? As far as I know, "tangible" is most commonly associated with "touch".

>>10390499
>the physical objects that have motion/time.
Sounds like you concede the existence of distance (motion is a change in distance of time) and time then, great

>>10388418
Theory of general relativity is probably not all right, but it did get right that gravity and time are in some weird way entangled with each other. Now that does not mean that we are actually sorrounded by something called "spacetime". It can also be that as soon as we find a graviton and a chronon (alleged particles responsible for gravity and time) we might understand why these two are entangled, or might actually end up being one thing.

>>10390531
>Sounds like you concede the existence of distance
I'm claiming that "distance" is an intangible property/concept of the physical, it is not physical itself.

You are claiming that distance is a tangible property of space, therefore space is also tangible.

>motion is a change in distance of time
This is metaphysics and doesn't mean anything scientifically.

>>10390561
Lmao please share your definition of motion

>>10388418
If you are bothered by the fact that "time" is a measurement and "space" is not, maybe you could call it "distancetime" instead? Or maybe it would help if you thought of "duration" as a measurement, and time is to duration as space is to distance?

The reason the two get intertwined is that relative motion through space causes clocks and rulers in different frames to disagree on distances and durations. But they /do/ both agree on a metric called the "spacetime interval" which is sqrt(t^2-d^2). This is kind of like how different coordinate systems will disagree on the x- and y- coordinates of the end of a line segment, but will agree on the length of the segment.

>>10390470
Time is tangible. You can set up a clock on the ground and one in a satellite, and after a while the clocks will be slightly different to each other. So time has to be something real, because how else can these clocks experience two different kind of times.

For space it's a bit more difficult, but it is tangible in theory, too. As per the theory, you can actually measure the gravitational waves of distant objects accelerating, if they are just massive enough. This was allegedely done 3 years ago. However, this experiment is in my opinion a bit questionable, because we should be receiving gravitational waves non-stop, but LIGO says it only detected two of them since its operational. That's like setting up a telescope and almost never seeing stars. Either your telescope is broken or the stars dont really exist and you are seeing something else.

>>10390564
>Lmao please share your definition of motion
Motion is movement.

>>10390605
Define movement, without being circular this time

>>10390363
Got trips because a field is not physical you dumbass. Two magnets still act the same in a complete vacuum >>10390333

>>10390681
magnetism is a property of electrons.

>>10390576
>Time is tangible. You can set up a clock on the ground and one in a satellite, and after a while the clocks will be slightly different to each other. So time has to be something real, because how else can these clocks experience two different kind of times.
So you're putting two physical objects in very different physical environments, and expecting their physical components to behave exactly the same way?

>For space it's a bit more difficult, but it is tangible in theory, too. As per the theory, you can actually measure the gravitational waves of distant objects accelerating, if they are just massive enough. This was allegedely done 3 years ago. However, this experiment is in my opinion a bit questionable, because we should be receiving gravitational waves non-stop, but LIGO says it only detected two of them since its operational. That's like setting up a telescope and almost never seeing stars. Either your telescope is broken or the stars dont really exist and you are seeing something else.
You'd be right to be sceptical. Things like LIGO are tax scams, designed to be a never ending source of income for pseudo-scientists that have convinced people they're highly intelligent by pretending they're actually making breakthroughs and backing it up with jibberish jargon and bullshit graphs etc. The whole concept of "gravity waves" makes no metaphysical sense, because it means space and time travelling through space and time, which is meaningless.

>>10390497
Light speed is the rate of induction. Light is a wave. If I go to the beach and ask you what you see, and you say "waves". What you actually see is moving water caused by tides from the moons pull. The "waves" are the effect from gravities pull, the wave is not causing itself to move.
This goes for a light wave, it's a wave and an effect. Reification is a dangerous thing in science when it comes to understanding reality.

>>10390698
What happens when the electron loses this "property"?

>>10390698
Massivley Wrong. All electrical scientists who gave you the power grid 110 odd years ago, which we are still using to this day disagree with this flowing electron crap, again it's physicists putting particles into things to explain effects in a physical way.

J.j thomson who discovered the electron wasn't even sure they exist. Electrons are not flowing down inside a wire, this is ridiculous and unfortunately electrical studies have been absolutely stamped out and controlled from around 1919, the year it was illegal to even own a radio.
The electricity travels on the surface of the wire and the "electron" is a terminal end. Like a car speeding down a shingle road and little stones flying out the side, that's the electrons.

https://youtu.be/TttHkDRuyZw

This guy has the best understanding of the electrical side of things. And it's way different to today's conventional understanding.

>>10390718
I'm really confused now

>>10390742
Think of a light wave as a sound wave.
If you speak to me, you voicebox disturbs the air (a medium) and the sound waves vibrate through the air at a rate of induction (speed of sound) and then my ear is the receiver and picks up the vibrations you have sent to me. Your voice isn't shooting particles into my ear, you have caused a perturbation of the medium and I have picked up the disturbance as sound.
You understand that?

>>10390775
Yeah that makes sense
So are you implying that waves and matter are just perturbations of reality?

>>10388902
/sci/ btfo

>>10390732
protip: it doesn’t

>>10390790
Waves yes. Matter no. But when we talk about light then there is no matter involved. Sun is the source, gross matter is the receiver where it is illuminated. Technically you could argue that light doesn't travel.

>>10390925
photons are matter.

>>10390711
>The whole concept of "gravity waves" makes no metaphysical sense, because it means space and time travelling through space and time, which is meaningless.
May I suggest you read any GR textbook?

>>10390611
Motion is change in position

>>10391050
What is position? What is it changing with respect to?

>>10388418
We have zero idea. GR works by going "wait ok suppose space and time are linked into some kind of thing, and suppose the geometry of that changes due to mass-energy" and there you have it. We don't know how it works any more than Newton had any actual mechanism for gravity to work. Our entire physics corpus is big on what, and almost totally silent on how or why. Best we can do so far really.

>>10390912
Huh, last time I checked "properties" can become lost. It's almost like magnetism is actually a conjugate of it or something...

>>10388418
It is just representing stuff in 4D by using time as a dimension alongside the other 3 dimensions

It's bascially a space with 4 dimensions where on of the dimensions is time.

Each dimension has a magnitude and so does times and the dimensions itself construct the space.

>>10391015
What makes you think I haven't?

>>10390939
Photons are an equation and have no rest mass, I consider particles something you can physically deal with. Anything pre hydrogen is not part of the world of matter. The wave particle duality is dumb.

>>10391083
>>10391085
Nice metaphysics.

>>10391097
It's an abstraction the same way our perception of the 3D model is used to describe our world.

Define metaphyscis.

>>10391093
The fact that you don't understand gravitational waves.

>>10391105
Waves of what? A wave is a verb, a doing word. It is not a thing.
And no one can agree what the fuck gravity is yet.
Buzz words like "gravity waves" are for retards who have no understanding of nature.
Gravitational waves also could not be found in replicated experiments by other indelendant scientists.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-noise-in-gravitational-wave-data-sparks-debate-20170630/

I'm beginning to think people on /sci/ are actually the same as hardcore religious folk with closed minds. No arguing with the dogma.

>>10391121
>A wave is a verb
You literally use it as a noun here .

>>10391102
Metaphysics is abstraction regarding the nature of reality.

>>10391121
>Waves of what? A wave is a verb, a doing word. It is not a thing.
Nonsense.

>And no one can agree what the fuck gravity is yet.
There is pretty wide agreement on how gravity behaves, though.

>Buzz words like "gravity waves" are for retards who have no understanding of nature.
Calling it a buzzword doesn't make it any less of a theoretically predicted and experimentally verified phenomenon.

>Gravitational waves also could not be found in replicated experiments by other indelendant scientists.
>https://www.quantamagazine.org/strange-noise-in-gravitational-wave-data-sparks-debate-20170630/

I'm assuming your link is unrelated, because it has nothing to do with other experiments. Scientists analyzed the data using their own methods and got a slight excess in correlation for noise events. It affects the signal significance slightly, if they're even correct.

And, I'm sure you know, both LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves from a binary neutron star merger, which was verified by gamma ray telescopes. So in reality, unlike what you claim, separate experiments did confirm gravitational waves.

>>10391132
Do you agree that a wave cannot cause itself to exist?

>>10391159
>both LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves from a binary neutron star merger, which was verified by gamma ray telescopes. So in reality, unlike what you claim, separate experiments did confirm gravitational waves.

How is this applicable or helpful to advancing humanity?
Separate observations recorded waves through the telescope.
A telescope observing something is not an experiment. And It observed Waves from the neutron star merger.
Define Gravity.

>>10391159
>>Waves of what? A wave is a verb, a doing word. It is not a thing.
>Nonsense.

Jesus Christ anon. Open the window and let out some of the wrong.

>>10391175
travel between parallel dimensions.

>>10391175
>How is this applicable or helpful to advancing humanity?
Holy shit I can't even see the goalposts from here anymore.

>Separate observations recorded waves through the telescope.
>A telescope observing something is not an experiment. And It observed Waves from the neutron star merger.
So I guess you just have a whole beef with astronomy in general.

>Define Gravity.
The curvature of spacetime.

>>10391159
>Nonsense.
Is a "gravity wave" made of space and time?
>There is pretty wide agreement on how gravity behaves, though.
There's wide agreement on how the tooth fairy behaves as well.
>Calling it a buzzword doesn't make it any less of a theoretically predicted and experimentally verified phenomenon.
Calling it an experimentally verified phenomenon doesn't make it true.
>And, I'm sure you know, both LIGO and VIRGO detected gravitational waves from a binary neutron star merger, which was verified by gamma ray telescopes.
You know this do you? It's complete mumbo jumbo that you're parroting.
>So in reality, unlike what you claim, separate experiments did confirm gravitational waves.
Experiments?

>>10391193
>Is a "gravity wave" made of space and time?
It's not "made up of" space and time, it's curvature of space time that propagates.

>There's wide agreement on how the tooth fairy behaves as well.
lol

>Calling it an experimentally verified phenomenon doesn't make it true.
Being experimentally verified increases the posterior probability that it's true.

>You know this do you? It's complete mumbo jumbo that you're parroting.
Calling it mumbo jumbo is just more indication that you don't know anything about the subject.

>Experiments?
Yes. Experiments.

>>10391181
>So I guess you just have a whole beef with astronomy in general.
No, there are some brilliant mathematicians and people in the field. But to rally behind theories like they are facts that some people do absolutely disgusts me. Because to believe so much in a theory with no evidence to agree it is the actual truth, makes people with this mindset religious fanatics and not truth seekers of science.

>>Define Gravity.
>The curvature of spacetime.

The entire point of this thread is to argue that spacetime, another buzzword is completely off from reality again.
How do you curve nothing?

>>10391214
>The entire point of this thread is to argue that spacetime, another buzzword is completely off from reality again.
And the objections are nonsense.

>How do you curve nothing?
It's not nothing.

>>10388418
>Platonic
I think you mean "Lepponic". ie, of Lepponicus and Democritus.

>>10391219
Define Space.
You need to metrically measure at least 2 points to know the distance between them, this does not mean there is anything actually in the middle.
Define Time.
Time is a human measurement of change. If all the particles in the universe were to freeze, time would effectively stop. If one particle moved then you could measure the change, and label it Time.

>>10391231
Spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold. The split into space and time is coordinate dependent.

>>10391203
>It's not "made up of" space and time, it's curvature of space time that propagates.
As if that makes any more sense. What makes the "curvature" different?
>Being experimentally verified increases the posterior probability that it's true.
You have it on faith that it is "experimentally verified".
>Calling it mumbo jumbo is just more indication that you don't know anything about the subject.
Why are you convinced that it's true? You haven't verified anything.
>Yes. Experiments.
You sure about that?

>>10391252
>As if that makes any more sense. What makes the "curvature" different?
If it doesn't make sense to you, that's your problem, not the theory's.

>You have it on faith that it is "experimentally verified".
No, I've seen data and talked with a few of the people involved at conferences.

>>10391137
Physics never claimed that it doesn't abstract either.
What's wrong with abstraction? It's not like nature reality exists epsitemologically.

>>10391238
>Spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold. The split into space and time is coordinate dependent.

That is another theory, with these gravity wells etc. It Does not unify or make sense of space. or time.

A coordinate is a point we can measure from.
All around the coordinate is emptiness, Not "spacetime"

>>10391295
>A coordinate is a point we can measure from.
>All around the coordinate is emptiness, Not "spacetime"

Psst... the collection of those points is called spacetime.

>>10391271
>If it doesn't make sense to you, that's your problem, not the theory's.
Is that how it works? You can just create a nonsensical theory claim it is their problem if they don't understand it. Science bitch!
>No, I've seen data and talked with a few of the people involved at conferences.
Doesn't get much better than that. You have extremely high standards.

>>10391287
>Physics never claimed that it doesn't abstract either.
I don't see physicists claiming it does abstract though. They speak as if everything they say is fact.

>>10391302
>nonsensical theory
Only nonsensical to people who are biased against it.
>Doesn't get much better than that. You have extremely high standards.
Does India even exist? I mean, have you been there?

>>10391297

>Psst... the collection of those points is called spacetime.

>psst...I still haven't listed a property or attribute of "time" or "space" so lets just talk about fairies and unicorns instead.

>>10391287
"gravity is as real as unicorns and leprechauns"

Will that satisfy your need to quantify "gravity" as a "force"?

>>10388418
>How can you bend nothing,
Read a differential geometry (or general relativity) textbook and find out

>>10391310
>>psst...I still haven't listed a property or attribute of "time" or "space" so lets just talk about fairies and unicorns instead.
People have said the properties multiple times across these sorts of threads. The replies have always been something along the lines of "spacetime doesn't exist so it can't have properties" or "that's not a property because I say so".

>>10391308
That's not true at all.
Physics claim that they have models that can predict the outcome of certain behaviours in the world. Tell me any physicist saying that Newton's physics is real or in this case that General Relativity is real. When it comes to models being ontologically real is nothing science has ever calimed, scientist knows the flaws of science it's you who are believe in absolute knowledges for some stupid reason.

>>10391309
>Only nonsensical to people who are biased against it.
And you're not biased for it? What is it about the theory that makes actual sense to you?
>Does India even exist? I mean, have you been there?
If I wanted to prove that India existed, I could fly there. You believe gravitational waves exist because you've seen some data and spoken to some people. It's that easy...

>>10391362
>What is it about the theory that makes actual sense to you?

The idea of curved manifolds makes sense to me. The idea of objects following geodesics makes sense to me. The reproduction of Newtonian gravity makes sense to me. What exactly is there to not make sense?

>>10391331
>Tell me any physicist saying that Newton's physics is real or in this case that General Relativity is real.
So the physicists claiming to have detected gravitational waves are not saying they are real?

>>10391376
>The idea of curved manifolds makes sense to me. The idea of objects following geodesics makes sense to me.
These are mathematical abstractions. What about curved space-time that supposedly exists in physical reality?
>The reproduction of Newtonian gravity makes sense to me.
Mathematically, or in physical reality?

>>10391405
>These are mathematical abstractions.
What's your point? That's what theories are.

>What about curved space-time that supposedly exists in physical reality?
Are you aware that the theory of general relativity has predictions which have been tested?

>Mathematically, or in physical reality?
You can do the weak field, nonrelativistic limit mathematically and get Newtonian gravity.

>>10388418
>Time is a measurement.
so if u dont measure time it does not exist? bullshit

>>10391405
Curved-space-time is an abstraction of our reality just like newton's theory. I don't even understand what the fuck you're on about.
Let's make sure we are not arguing around semantics and establish what premises we are arguing from. What does it mean that something exists in physical reality to you? Perhaps you need to look back and read some Karl Popper on epistemology or something.

>>10388418
>MUH PERSONAL INCREDULITY BEATS EINSTEIN DUR POOOO STINKH

>>10391455
>That's what theories are.
False.
>Are you aware that the theory of general relativity has predictions which have been tested?
Not what I asked. Does curved space-time exist in physical reality?
>You can do the weak field, nonrelativistic limit mathematically and get Newtonian gravity.
In fantasy land.

>>10391488
>Not what I asked. Does curved space-time exist in physical reality?

>Hur dur what do GPS satellites have to account for

>>10391488
>Does curved space-time exist in physical reality?
Does, like... anything exist, man?

>In fantasy land.
Sure, whatever.

>>10391468
>What does it mean that something exists in physical reality to you?
Something that can be empirically measured directly.

>>10391490
>Does, like... anything exist, man?
Sollipsowned.

>>10391489
>Hur dur what do GPS satellites have to account for
Time dilation? You really think that's true? It would be mathematically impossible to account for not only time dilation, but also the differing temperatures, atmosphere, clouds, pressure etc that will all play a part in time difference.

>>10391490
>Does, like... anything exist, man?
Why can't you answer the question? Does curved space-time exist in physical reality?

>>10391500
>Does curved space-time exist in physical reality?
Maybe. All observations so far agree with it existing.

>>10391491
And why isn't that applicable to space-time?

>>10391498
Thanks for finally entering conspiracy territory.

> It would be mathematically impossible to account for not only time dilation

No it wouldn’t. Seven microseconds is well-within the ability of a computer to calculate.

>but also the differing temperatures, atmosphere, clouds, pressure etc that will all play a part in time difference.

None of those cause time-dilation.

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=77

>>10391503
>Maybe. All observations so far agree with it existing.
Observations of what?
>>10391510
>And why isn't that applicable to space-time?
How much does space-time weigh?

>>10391521
>Observations of what?
Of the universe.

>>10391326
You are making no sense. And we are the ones you are accusing off making no sense. It is now established spacetime makes no sense in actual reality.

>>10391523
>You are making no sense. And we are the ones you are accusing off making no sense. It is now established spacetime makes no sense in actual reality.


>Hur dur time dilation goes away if I ignore it

This is just a troll guys

>>10391516
>No it wouldn’t. Seven microseconds is well-within the ability of a computer to calculate.
It wouldn't be just seven microseconds, it would be all over the place. Any error would increase exponentially.
>None of those cause time-dilation.
>http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=77
Jej, the radio wave will not propagate at the same speed constantly, it needs to pass through dynamically changing environments and therefore is impossible to calculate for.

>>10391522
>Of the universe.
Universe = One Verse
I respect your right to have a religion, but this doesn't belong in /sci/, sorry.

>>10391524
>Hur dur time dilation goes away if I ignore it
So putting a physical clock high in the air where there is much less atmospheric pressure and you're surprised it operates faster?

>>10391527
>It wouldn't be just seven microseconds, it would be all over the place. Any error would increase exponentially.

Yes it would. Time running slightly faster doesn’t make “any error increase exponentially”. That’s a lie, and your trolling is starting to fail.

>Jej, the radio wave will not propagate at the same speed constantly, it needs to pass through dynamically changing environments and therefore is impossible to calculate for.

And? We’re talking about the satellite, not the waves. Keep your /x/tard brain on track.

>>10391535
>So putting a physical clock high in the air where there is much less atmospheric pressure and you're surprised it operates faster?


Lmao what is this troll shit. How does atmospheric pressure affect atomic clocks? It doesn’t.

>>10391537
>Yes it would. Time running slightly faster doesn’t make “any error increase exponentially”. That’s a lie, and your trolling is starting to fail.
Oh dear. If the calculations are set for a specific delay, then any deviation can have big consequences, making GPS too inaccurate to be useable. The satellites also slow down, so their speed and time has to be constantly monitored and updated by the military. It's a complete nightmare of a system if it were real.
>And? We’re talking about the satellite, not the waves. Keep your /x/tard brain on track.
The time the signal is received matters brainlet.

>>10391558
>Oh dear. If the calculations are set for a specific delay, then any deviation can have big consequences, making GPS too inaccurate to be useable.

There is no variation. They don’t go up and down for no reason.

>The satellites also slow down, so their speed and time has to be constantly monitored and updated by the military. It's a complete nightmare of a system if it were real.

No they don’t, and their speed is irrelevant to their time dilation.

Back to /x/ with your conspiracy shit.

>The time the signal is received matters brainlet.

Keep your little brain on track, honey.

>>10391570
>There is no variation. They don’t go up and down for no reason.
Of course there's variation - physical reality is dynamic.
>their speed is irrelevant to their time dilation.
Better be trolling.
>Keep your little brain on track, honey.
That's what I thought.

>>10391521
Why would space-time weigh?
It's a definition, it's just a fucking vector space.

>>10391405
Physics is an area of Science in which people try to describe physical reality. This usually is most effectively done using math to describe patterns. You aren't arguing whether the math works, you are arguing whether the patterns exist. The problem with this is that the existence of the patterns is best proven using the math. You need to learn math first before you can argue that the patterns that general relativity aims to describe exist. The reason we reached consensus so quickly on this is that the math works perfectly well and predicts the behaviour of the universe very effectively.

>>10391489
Time dilation is not curved space. It's speed dependant, faster you go the slower time changes.