🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:10:05 UTC No. 16468549
What they tell you: For every force there is an equal and opposite force.
What they don't tell you: One force of those force pairs is fictitious.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:13:51 UTC No. 16468556
that's not what a fictitious force is, numbskull
a fictitious force is a force introduced to your math by doing your physics in an inertial reference frame
the real mind fuck is the spinning bucket
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:15:32 UTC No. 16468560
>>16468549
>A mattress that pushes back against gravity does not exist.
Meds.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:20:30 UTC No. 16468568
>>16468556
The force outward on a spinning bucket is fictitious. If a camera were spinning, and it were watching the path of a ball moving in a straight line, that ball would follow the path of the fictitious force being applied to the camera.
>>16468560
Gravity is a fictitious force it's not a result of spooky action at a distance, it is because the coordinate systems of gravitating bodies necessitate its' existence. Two bodies exert forces on one anther because they have intersected one another along geodesic paths through space and time.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:23:17 UTC No. 16468577
>>16468568
It would have to be spinning on an axis going through the locus of it's lens, and looking down at the ball following the path along a flat surface.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:25:06 UTC No. 16468578
>>16468568
How does a bent geodesic add energy to the core of the earth? Where is that energy coming from?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:30:01 UTC No. 16468582
>>16468578
Say I have flat space. Two particles at rest.
There is no potential energy.
Now suppose the space is curved, positively, like in a gravitational field. Now in the space from the present to the future the geodesics of their motion intersect. The potential energy appears at every point from the present into the future of those paths, the particles move along the geodesics and their potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. However both particles can say that they are at rest and it is the other particle that is in motion towards them. Since both particles can insist that they are in a frame with no forces gravity must be a fictitious force.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:33:14 UTC No. 16468588
>>16468582
If there is no force, then why are cores hot?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:33:56 UTC No. 16468589
>>16468568
>Two bodies exert forces on one anther because they have intersected one another
The problem is that they don't. Why do solid objects stack instead of blend?
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:35:36 UTC No. 16468591
>>16468588
Nuclear decay. Completely different phenomenon. Look it up.
>>16468589
Electromagnetic forces.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:58:42 UTC No. 16468634
>>16468591
>Electromagnetic forces.
Sure but that doesn't fully explain how an equilibrium is achieved. Without gravity as a real force the electromagnetic forces of stacked objects both repel and attract eachother such that the stacked objects don't seem to move anymore.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:01:23 UTC No. 16468640
>>16468634
That's an illusion. Atoms are in perpetual motion and the electromagnetic force is atomic in nature. Atoms of buildings on earth are always bouncing off each other under the influence of electromagnetic and gravitational fields.
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:49:05 UTC No. 16468710
>>16468549
Tug-of-war.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:22:35 UTC No. 16469219
>>16468582
If EM is just a consequence of a certain gauge group, couldn't that be explained as a fictitious force as well?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:23:34 UTC No. 16469220
>>16469219
That's above my pay grade.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:02:35 UTC No. 16469249
>For every force there is an equal and opposite force
Couldn't you pull some relativistic forces out of your ass and say it's actually 2 forces at offset angles where the components of the forces perpendicular to the motion and equal in magnitude but opposite in direction cancel out?
Why's it gotta be a single equal and opposite force? Seems overly reductive.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:34:36 UTC No. 16469271
>>16469249
Oh, you can play the vectors to components and back again game forever, and it's still going to come back to Newtons' third.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:36:00 UTC No. 16469272
>>16468842
I'm here for you Sayaka. After all aren't you the one who's lonely?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 13:21:09 UTC No. 16470720
"ChatGPT
You said:
Difference sitting at edge of merry go round vs center
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
When you sit at the edge of a merry-go-round versus the center, two main physical differences stand out:
Speed: While the entire merry-go-round rotates at the same angular speed (measured in degrees or radians per second), your linear speed increases with distance from the center. Sitting at the edge, you cover a larger arc length per rotation, meaning you’re moving faster in a straight line compared to someone at the center.
Centripetal Force: The farther you are from the center, the more centripetal force is required to keep you moving in a circular path. At the edge, you feel a much stronger pull outward (an effect of inertia, often called "centrifugal force" in this context), making it harder to hold on. At the center, this force is minimal, so you don’t feel that same “pull.”"
So objects revolving farther from the center experience greater energy therefore have greater relativistic mass
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 14:18:35 UTC No. 16470767
There are no interntial frames of reference. Everything is always accelerating somewhere.
Prove me wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:53:36 UTC No. 16472291
>>16470767
Who said otherwise
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:33:24 UTC No. 16472339
>>16470767
OK, well you raise several problems. Any mass in the universe means that the universe will be slightly curved. Any curved space means that any inertial frame will still be moving around in curved space, and thus appear to accelerate. So maybe we can imagine FFing time until after the black hole era, when all the mass is gone. We can then have an inertial frame for photons.
Photons can travel infinitely in an inertial frame after the heat death of the universe...Unless the universe is curved. If so two photons traveling in parallel with another will eventually converge or diverge and it will look like the extrinsic gravity or anti-gravity of either a positively curved or negatively curved manifold.
BUT, if we give ourselves only a flat universe and imagine photons in a massless universe, then yes. A realistic purely inertial frame can be argued.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:01:45 UTC No. 16472373
>>16468568
>Gravity is a fictitious force
Lmfao. The absolute state of /sci/
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:03:56 UTC No. 16472378
>>16472373
LMFAO. The absolute state of MOND.
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:05:02 UTC No. 16472379
>>16472378
Nobody said anything about mond, schizo
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 21:51:42 UTC No. 16472439
>>16472379
Well if you're not taking a relativistic view of gravity, and you want to think gravity is a force, then you're arguing the only other option that it is a force, and that's Newtonian gravity and the only option for modern Newtonian gravity is MOND, right?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:27:31 UTC No. 16472874
>>16472439
With your help we will get to the bottom of this together:
Define force
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:16:52 UTC No. 16473016
>>16472874
The function of an objects' mass times the objects' acceleration.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:38:09 UTC No. 16473037
>>16473016
>The function of an objects' mass times the objects' acceleration.
Does a celestial body have mass?
Does a celestial body accelerate?
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:45:02 UTC No. 16473041
>>16473037
A celestial body may consider itself at rest if no forces are acting upon it.
You can shrink this down to a baseball going around the star.
A baseball may orbit a star given a starting velocity.
According to the baseball it is at rest and the star is moving around it.
According to the star it is at rest and the baseball is moving around it.
Because both frames are inertial we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong, even though there is a HUGE mass disparity.
If we look at the baseball and the sun in terms of spacetime we see that the space is curved and the two bodies are following the geodesics of their inertial frames as time moves forward.
There are no forces, the two bodies only follow curved paths on the spacetime manifold from the past to the future.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 06:54:29 UTC No. 16473054
>>16473041
Okay, well hopefully you answered the first question, does a celestial body have mass, yes.
Does ancelestial body accelerate, let's take the sun for instance:
An object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon
There is no reason for the sun to not travel in an actual straight line (they are called spiral galaxies) unless it is being acted upon by something.
If the curvature of space time is acting on the sun, disallowing it a true linear path, it must be said the curvature of space time is forcing the sun to follow a certain path.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:04:14 UTC No. 16473069
>>16473054
>If the curvature of space time is acting on the sun
That is a bit of a malformed concept. I wouldn't say the curvature is acting on the sun. Space just is curved and the sun follows the curve, just as say a hill is not acting on a ball rolling down it. The ball is what is acting, the hill is just the surface it follows.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:18:41 UTC No. 16473078
>>16473069
>Space just is curved and the sun follows the curve, just as say a hill is not acting on a ball rolling down it. The ball is what is acting, the hill is just the surface it follows.
Kicking the gravity can down the road.
What causes space to curve, you will feel better when this clicks for you
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 07:21:14 UTC No. 16473081
>>16473078
>What causes space to curve, you will feel better when this clicks for you
I don't know what does it, I only know that in the presence of mass spacetime curves. How one makes the other happen is a mystery to me.
It helps to remember though that the stress-energy tensor of the Einstein field equations does not treat the source of gravity as mass, it treats it as energy.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:17:09 UTC No. 16473163
>>16473078
Gravitons are localized disturbances in the gravimetric spacetime. They move at the local speed of the universe's expansion and leave behind a trail of gravitational waves travelling at the speed of light
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 09:25:14 UTC No. 16473167
>>16473081
>I only know that in the presence of mass spacetime curves.
So to recap:
Celestial body has mass
You defined force as:
Mass and acceleration.
You claim celestial body mass curves spacetime.
Spacetime is something that can be curved. In order for a curve to occur space must change its form, change its location, from not curved to curved, changing location is acceleration, or at least in that context of non curved space to curved space
Massive body Forces space to curve.
Curved space forces another massive body to accelerate.
I forgot the initial topic, but I must have answered it, did I not, do you remember what you were doubting
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:43:33 UTC No. 16473756
>>16468549
Truth is stranger than fiction, and fiction is more real than truth.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 04:34:59 UTC No. 16474346
>>16473167
If you're done chasing your own tail I hope you realize that in gravity nothing is exerting any force on anything else. Everything is just following their paths of least action, geodesics, as they go from the past to the future.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:03:49 UTC No. 16474359
>>16474346
Location A space not curve
Location B space not curve
Location C space not curve
Location D space not curve
Location E space not curve
Location F space not curve
Location G space curved
Location H space curved
Location I MASS (1)
Location J space curved
Location K space curved
Location L space not curved
Location M space not curved
Location N space not curved
MASS (1) is traveling North through spacetime, it started at Location Z
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:53:43 UTC No. 16474644
>>16474359
Yeah, uh. Do you have the Christoffel symbols for all those locations?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:56:29 UTC No. 16474648
>>16468549
Niggers force their way inside your anus if you don't carry a gun
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:57:48 UTC No. 16474650
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:45:47 UTC No. 16474810
>>16474644
>Yeah, uh. Do you have the Christoffel symbols for all those locations?
Is space something or nothing? Why can't you look at my last post and read into it
>>16474359
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:52:14 UTC No. 16474822
>>16474644
What came first:
The Mass or
The Spacetime or
The Curved Spacetime
You claim curved space time exists,
but Spacetime is not assumed to curve of its own volition.
And if that is so,
Space time must be curved
And if that is so
Spacetime must be forced to curve
And if that is so
It must be mass that forces space time to curve
And if that is so
Mass must accelerate Spacetime from a non curved to a curved formation
And if that is so
A Mass in the vicinity of Spacetime-forced-to-curve will be forced to accelerate by the accelerated-spacetime-forced-to-cur
It seems this is so
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:07:46 UTC No. 16474959
>>16474359
>Location A space not curve
>Location B space not curve
>Location C space not curve
>Location D space not curve
>Location E space not curve
>Location F space not curve
>Location G space curved
>Location H space curved
>Location I MASS (1)
>Location J space curved
>Location K space curved
>Location L space not curved
>Location M space not curved
>Location N space not curved
The correction to be made is that, while in solar system,while in galaxy:
It is mislabeled to say A B C D E F (and below mass) space not curved. But just, less curved then locally surrounding mass
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:05:43 UTC No. 16475077
>>16474810
I don't think you know anything about general relativity. So you can present the idea in a way compatible with GR, give me a better theory that is different but works or you can stop expecting me to play along with your nonsense.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:39:16 UTC No. 16475211
>>16468549
what does it even mean for a force to be 'fictitious'? is it something like a 'social construct'?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 03:33:47 UTC No. 16475626
>>16475211
A force which can be shown to be a matter of perspective. That's the best way I can think of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:33:42 UTC No. 16475801
>>16468549
obviously, otherwise no change in motion would bepossible as every force would be instantly and exactly balanced out.