🧵 Is my conceptual understanding of gravity correct?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:14:54 UTC No. 16269254
Alright I definitely don't understand all the mathematics involved in General Relativity. I understand it is a highly formalized area of mathematical physics that I lack proper training in. I just want to run by you guys on whether or not my conceptual or qualitative understanding of gravity is correct. Is what I am thinking bullshit? Or is it generally accurate? Here it goes:
>Just as the basic entity for magnetism is the magnetic dipole, mass is the basic entity of gravity
>The mass of a body is determined by its internal structure like its electrons, protons, and neutrons, the latter of the two being made up of quarks which are held together by gluons that transmit the strong force.
>This in turn results in a kind of internal energy of the body, indeed mass is just another form of energy via E=mc^2. This internal energy results in an internal pressure giving the body an energy density that results in it having volume.
>Hence we have matter, which is defined by both having mass and taking up volume.
>Somehow this energy density is able to put stress on spacetime resulting in spacetime curvature. The exact mechanisms for this are not entirely known except that the stress put on spacetime is the result of the energy giving rise to gravitational fields which are what cause other bodies to be attracted to one another, they simply follow their natural movement over the curved metric.
>Consequently this results in a balance where the internal energies of a body expand it or accelerate it upward, but the stresses put on spacetime as a result of that energy cause the body to stay together, the individual constituents of matter simply follow the warped spacetime.
>Large rigid bodies don't collapse because of their internal pressure, and they don't break apart because of the stresses put on spacetime.
>In free fall, a body follows its natural movement over curved spacetime but something like the earth is accelerating up at it causing an illusion of a force.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:29:12 UTC No. 16269274
Einstein didn't believe that particles emitted energy at all. He just believed that the speed of light time limit was constant everywhere and that this approximated particle emissions and that objects rolled on top of the light if anything thus forcing it to be a fabric.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 19:51:12 UTC No. 16269390
>>16269254
No one knows but what I can tell you definitively is that Einsteinian relativity is wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:03:54 UTC No. 16269652
>>16269390
What do you mean no one knows? Is my description correct or not it's a fucking yes or no...
OP is a faggot at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:08:49 UTC No. 16269656
>>16269652
I mean no one fucking knows. Its all theory and speculation. The objective answer is yes or no but no one here knows which it is regarding a lot of your reddit spaced paragraphs.
But if its all or nothing then the answer is no because you mention 'spacetime curvature' which is Einsteinian garbage. Spacetime is not a thing. Time cannot curve. Space maybe can curve maybe not, its up for debate, no modern physicist knows for sure.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:08:59 UTC No. 16269658
>>16269652
>What do you mean no one knows?
No one knows for sure how gravity works, it's one of life's biggest questions.
Your description looks like Einstein's relativity though I guess, I only skimmed it.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:10:26 UTC No. 16269659
>>16269658
>>16269656
Well is my interpretation of Einstein correct? I'm not necessarily asking whether this is the "true nature" of gravity I know it's not fully known but is my understanding the general understanding of people who understand general relativity and shit or am I just being a pseud?
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:27:05 UTC No. 16269686
>>16269656
>>16269658
>cant explain what gravity is
>cant explain what measurement is
>literally has no idea what half of their own shit actually mean like the wave function
>literally they cant reconcile their two biggest ideas
>has circular definitions for shit for example
>"what is energy?"
>"the capacity to do wok"
>what is work?
>"the transfer of energy"
Modern physics literally can't decide its own ontology or be logically consistent enough to give sufficient definitions for things.
Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 23:30:43 UTC No. 16269689
>>16269686
True. A big part of this is mainstream science's sad devotion to Einsteinian relativity. They treat it like gospel.
As for QM, it may hold some truth but superposition/copenhagen interpretation is a popsci meme.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 01:52:15 UTC No. 16269805
>>16269686
Interesting dilemma.
Work is measurable. Repeated experiments with work provide a theory for energy. A given energy transfer is dependent upon the theoretical framework of the system.
>work is the transfer of energy
True
>energy is the capacity to do work
True, but this is not in a definitional sense. This is a narrow sense of energy going from one type to another. Energy exists independent of what we do with it, moreover its latent state is antithetical to notions of work. System evolution also means that we could dig a hole a little deeper and get more energy out of that ball on top of the hill.
A more extreme case would be have the earth disappear and drop the ball into the sun. Clearly just way different potentials involved.
Energy is common across motion, potentials, fields, photons, mass, chemicals, etc.
The syndiffeonic form then is that each is a type of energy. So maybe the term is circular because we are referring to a homonym.
Maybe
>work is the transfer of energy [between types]
>energy [in a system] is the [energy available] to do work
This or some other slight modification could delineate the circular definition purposed from defining energy itself.
This also gives other important dimensions to energy, as something that is accessible or inaccessible. We could drop a ball into the Sun if it wasn't for the pesky Earth.. System energy, another category of energy, could be a sum of the types available for work. This is closer to a ubiquitous energy behind all energies, though not separate enough to be non-circular.
If inertia is resistance to change, I am thinking energy may just be dimensions of change or even response. It opens other avenues we wouldn't typically consider energy even as we pour copious amounts of energy into them, for example, dilution and concentration. Probably first etymologically described as motion, fire, or dance.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 02:43:58 UTC No. 16269852
>>16269390
>Einsteinian relativity is wrong
Citation needed.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 02:45:52 UTC No. 16269854
>>16269852
>Citation needed.
Wait till you find out what's buried under the Vatican???!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 04:14:10 UTC No. 16269946
>>16269390
Einstein's theories have reliably predicted many natural phenomena.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 04:42:14 UTC No. 16269963
>>16269686
>what is work?
The application of force to move an object's position
>what is energy?
The capacity of an object to apply a force to an object and change it's position
raspberry pie at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 04:59:13 UTC No. 16269973
>>16269946
Because their math is based on facts that were known before Einsteinian relativity. Einsteinian relativity expands upon the math hence providing a useful mathematical framework but Einsteinian relativity's attempt to describe the actual implications of the math as to the objective nature of reality are an absurd failure.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 13:48:13 UTC No. 16270296
>>16269973
You're a retard physics is not philosophy it's science.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:00:45 UTC No. 16270307
>>16269963
What is force
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:55:34 UTC No. 16270721
>>16269254
Yes, thinking about gravity as a density field is acceptable.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 20:56:53 UTC No. 16270723
>>16269963
>>16270307
Gravity is an acceleration, not a force.
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:16:39 UTC No. 16270752
>>16269254
yes your understanding of gravity is correct. but your understanding of matter is not
Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 21:53:50 UTC No. 16270799
>>16270752
Could you please elaborate more? Genuinely I want to know where I went wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 00:33:11 UTC No. 16270963
>>16270296
string theorists and theoretical physicists love thinking about it as philosophy
>le supersymmetry
lmao
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 04:04:31 UTC No. 16271054
>>16269254
>made up of quarks which are held together by gluons that transmit the strong force
there are no particles that transmit a force, this is just a model to calculate the behavior of quantum systems for use in engineering. just like the current movement towards "gravitons" as an explanation for gravity - its a ludicrous idea. it is not a particle that is responsible for the force exerted on mass, it is the higher dimensional field dynamics of space itself. a graviton would just be useful in the same way a photon is useful. illumination is not an emission of particles, it is a wave product of a unified field that can be measured in discrete units of discharge (like an electron). magnetism is not a result of particles transmitting a force, it is a field phenomena that can be measured in force. matter is a lower dimensional holographic projection of this unitary field. this is the basis of all aether theories, spacetime relativity, and the quantum field. same thing by different names.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:53:08 UTC No. 16271526
>>16271054
string theory schizophrenia
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 15:16:48 UTC No. 16271547
>>16269254
No. First of all mass isn't the "basic entity" of gravity momentum is. Your relativistic mass goes up the faster you move (relative to some other object). You don't hear about this because it only really becomes relevant at relativistic speeds. "Spacetime" isn't a thing that actually exists. It is a useful construct to describe the structure of the universe but "warping" spacetime without momentum is meaningless. Ultimately gravity is an interaction between bodies with momentum not with "spacetime".
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 15:49:47 UTC No. 16271573
>>16271526
*reality
what makes you think reality would be simply understood? if your model of reality is simple chances are you are only looking at your perceptions and not the source of them. the shadows on the cave wall and not the real source
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 15:53:40 UTC No. 16271580
>>16271547
>he thinks space is actually empty and that matter is all that exists
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:45:09 UTC No. 16272105
>>16271573
string theory has never been empirically confirmed and never will be because its literally non-falsifiable pseudo garbage at this point.
raspberry pie at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 00:48:25 UTC No. 16272260
>>16271054
>aether theories, spacetime relativity, and the quantum field. same thing by different names.
Kind of except spacetime/SR is objectively fake whereas aether theory and QFT hold truth
raspberry pie at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 00:50:42 UTC No. 16272263
>>16272105
>non falsifiable
That would only mean it cant be disproven, not that it cant be proven (if it happens to be correct), retard.
That is not to say it can be proven, simply that being non falsifiable doesnt mean unprovable.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 01:25:54 UTC No. 16272298
>>16272263
doesn't mean unprovable; it does mean it's not science. no one would expect a namefag to understand this though
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:29:12 UTC No. 16272499
>>16269254
Gravity isn't a property of mass.
At the very smallest level space-time creases and folds.
Those folds sometimes assemble themselves into structures.
Those structures are able to interconnect into larger structures.
Those larger structures interconnect into even bigger structures.
Rinse and repeat until you can call them particles.
When particles interact, the space-time creases and folds will crease and fold even more.
Eventually, you get one big ass crease that can be felt from a long ass distance away.
There's a few more steps here that don't matter.
Eventually the big ass crease turns into a big ass fold.
That's a black hole.
>source
I had a horrible nightmare after forcing down about $50 worth of McChickens at 4:30AM and passing out while trying to masturbate.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:11:44 UTC No. 16272726
>>16271580
>he thinks mass exists at all
raspberry pie at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 14:58:46 UTC No. 16272843
>>16272298
>being this retarded
If it is true and is proven true, then that is science, even if in an alternate reality where it is untrue, it couldn't be proven untrue.
You 'muh unfalsifiable!!!' fags are some of the absolute worst fags in science. And some of the dumbest
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:05:46 UTC No. 16272852
>>16269254
What is this jarbling jargon we have here on this post.
1st if you don’t understand the mathematics how the hell can you honestly understand realitivity?
Sencond your wrong the end?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:03:13 UTC No. 16273876
>>16270723
Fo wha happened to F = m a?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 08:35:54 UTC No. 16273888
>>16269254
Gravity is actually the force carrier of quantum field theory, which distributes the quanta of every particle resulting in a net relativity that is generally defined by each subatomic state. Thus gravity is actually a meme that doesn't exist, but we call it to exist cause one thing needs to effect another thing for the things to move.
>source: gravity told me
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:06:21 UTC No. 16274899
are homosexuals affected by gravity?
Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:46:51 UTC No. 16275069