Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:33:22 UTC No. 16589895

nice good work

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:11:43 UTC No. 16589907

if it helps feel better, I have a hunch that electrical fields are not a force either

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:21:31 UTC No. 16590012

>>16589894
it is (sort of), you're conflating gravity and spacetime diagrams

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:25:06 UTC No. 16590014

>>16590012
gravity is the curvature of space-time

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:23:04 UTC No. 16590203

>>16589894
well whatever its called i get more and more attracted to your mom as she gains mass.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:41:54 UTC No. 16590224

>>16590014
Gravity causes the spacetime metric to distort, yes, noone is denying that

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 19:58:14 UTC No. 16590598

of course it's a force just not whatever retarded definition they currently have

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:14:11 UTC No. 16590624

>>16590224
>Gravity causes the spacetime metric to distort, yes, noone is denying that
Acktually, it's not just gravity that causes spacetime to distort—any form of energy or mass, including radiation and even dark energy, contributes to the curvature of spacetime. Gravity specifically refers to the effect mass and energy have on this curvature, according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:22:32 UTC No. 16590640

>>16590224
NTA and I'm a layman so bear with me, but I still don't intuitively get why we "fall" towards the center of gravity. I'd expect for space to divert through Earth if moving in relation to it. why do we "fall" if static in relation to Earth?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:23:59 UTC No. 16590643

>>16589894
>Alessandro
That kid is incredibly based.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:27:29 UTC No. 16590650

>>16590640
>I'd expect for space to divert through Earth if moving in relation to it.
I mean if space is distorted by Earth I expect to follow a distorted line going though Earth if you are moving in relation to Earth, go straight but straight is through Earth because distorted, but if you're not moving in this distorted space, why still fall towards its center?
intuitively it seems that matter/energy not only distorts but their centers of gravity starts "sucking" the space.
imagine a (weird) drain hole in the middle of a pool of water, it would start sucking water, and everything static in relation to that water would be dragged along into the drain hole. if you have a spherical sieve which stops larger chunks it would be a good model for gravity. it's just...weird, where does the water go?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:46:38 UTC No. 16590664

>>16590640

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:48:53 UTC No. 16590667

>>16590650
In the "water model" space is not the water. Rather the space being modeled is 2D and is represented by the water's surface.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:01:30 UTC No. 16590685

>>16590667
>"water model"
I don't know what 2D water model is, I just came up with the idea of a drain hole in the centroid of a pool, not connected to anything like pipes, it just magically drains the water.
imagine a very large pool with this drainhole in the middle with a large sieve around it, sucking the water through it, and you in scuba gear get sucked on the sieve surface. it would be equivalent, the water flowing by you would keep you on the sieve and you wouldn't be able to escape it.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:10:54 UTC No. 16590691

>>16590685
You aren't modeling gravity. You are modeling water draining out of a tub.
Models are like that.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:14:37 UTC No. 16590699

>>16590691
But in my analogy the water is the space itself. do you not understand my analogy? As in I'm telling you what my analogy is, you can't say it's not real because I fucking know, it's an analogy
>Analogy - A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
inb4
>but I did have breakfast

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:17:17 UTC No. 16590703

>>16590699
Your analogy is wrong. Space does not have a drain.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:18:51 UTC No. 16590708

>>16590703
anon, my analogy is to your movement through space (water in my analogy), the MOVEMENT would be analogous to fucking gravity. the MOVEMENT THROUGH SPACE, in this case scuba through water.
you just don't get it do you?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:21:05 UTC No. 16590712

>>16590708
I am telling you that you misunderstand the tub of water analogy. In that analogy space is the surface of the water, not the water itself.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:23:29 UTC No. 16590715

>>16590712
this is my analogy you moron I came up with it 5 minutes before posting. I don't give a fuck about your "settled science" water analogies, I am not talking about any of that, I don't even know anything about them.
this is MY analogy and I made as an intuitive model trying to understand gravity. again, I don't know shit about shit about your 2D water pool analogies.
in my case I was just pointing out that in MY analogy, a scuba's movement through this pool would be analogous to some ship moving through space next to Earth. that's it. I don't give a fuck about some "official" water pool analogy.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:26:03 UTC No. 16590719

>>16590715
Your analogy is wrong. Space does not have a drain.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:26:48 UTC No. 16590720

>>16590719
>but I did have breakfast
you dumb fuck

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:29:41 UTC No. 16590725

>>16590720
Still wrong, but you tried. Not very well though.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:31:43 UTC No. 16590727

>>16590725
now that you insisted around that, why wouldn't matter/energy drain space?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:43 UTC No. 16590743

>>16589894
it is a force though

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:46:29 UTC No. 16590753

>>16590727
They bend spacetime, they don't drain spacetime.
If you want to learn the correct analogy, view the surface of the water as space (or spacetime), not the water itself.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:50:08 UTC No. 16590756

>>16590753
but in that model I don't get why you fall when not moving. trying to get a grasp of the falling bit, even when static.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:52:39 UTC No. 16590762

>>16590756
Because your 2D spacetime is curved, very curved around the drain. So much so around the drain that you can't escape.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:55:44 UTC No. 16590767

>>16590762
yeah if you'd be moving along it and follow it then you'd be led into the center, that I understand. but why do you still go towards the center if static in relation to the center of gravity? your analogy implies you'd "fall" if you move along it, because you'd follow it.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:59:09 UTC No. 16590771

>>16590767
>your analogy implies you'd "fall" if you move along it, because you'd follow it.
Exactly. The astronaut moves towards the singularity because spacetime is warped towards the singularity.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:03:07 UTC No. 16590775

>>16590771
but why does he still fall if he doesn't move in relation to the center of gravity? he'd go off the aparent straight tragectory when he starts moving. say you point your jetpack to horizon but end up going towards the center of gravity instead of towards the horizon. because you'd be moving in relation to the center of gravity and you see as a straight line, towards the horizon, is actually bent, as space, towards the center of gravity, so you'd follow that route instead of going straight towards the horizon.
but once stopped, why keep falling? intuitively it seems like there's more, something active is happening with the space itself, like it's sucked towards the center of gravity, dragging you along.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:16:59 UTC No. 16590787

>>16590775
and the opposite of that would be some kind of matter that would generate space, but it would still fall into our environment as there wouldn't be enough to counteract and it would generate space in all directions.
like antimatter would go up. but an earth sized antimatter planet would have a "negative" gravitational field of "9.8m/s"

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:20:04 UTC No. 16590793

>>16590787
>like antimatter would go up
I meant like a few atoms wouldn't go up in our environment, they'd still fall. they wouldn't be able to counteract the space falling towards Earth, with their generation of space.
but an equivalent Earth sized planet made of antimatter would generate the equivalent of space that Earth is draining. so the antimatter Earth wouldn't fall towards Earth but matter would still fall, it would create a space current between Earth and antimatter Earth.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:23:38 UTC No. 16590799

>>16590793
>but an equivalent Earth sized planet made of antimatter would generate the equivalent of space that Earth is draining
but in that case an antimatter Earth wouldn't clump together.
you need like 10-20kg of antimatter ball and measure it's "space distortion" effects.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:37:56 UTC No. 16590808

>>16590799
basically an antimatter ball would weight just a bit less than expected from its mass, on Earth's surface. if antimatter generates space and matter drains it. it would weight less by the amount of the equivalent that a matter ball would generate "attraction" to it. which is very small anyway.
https://youtu.be/70-_GBymrck

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:10:24 UTC No. 16590843

>>16590787
>>16590793
>>16590799
Look up CERN’s ALPHA-g.
Antimatter doesn't "fall" up.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:24:05 UTC No. 16590867

>>16590843
yeah I remember they tested it with few atoms, sometime recently.
even if it falls down doesn't mean it doesn't generate the opposite effect to matter. you'd have to weight a bunch of it and know it's mass and see if it distorts space-time like matter or the opposite way.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:37:24 UTC No. 16590885

>>16590867
If it distorted it the opposite way, then it would fall up.
Antimatter is not negative mass, it's CPT reversed matter.
If you smash matter and antimatter into each other, what do you get?
Energy. And energy = mass*c^2. Which means that it is subject to regular gravitational interaction.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 03:43:16 UTC No. 16591058

>>16590664
This. It's all useless bullshit anyway. Low grade theories that don't even allow us to make ufos.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 04:31:39 UTC No. 16591086

>believing in Einsteinian relativity
it's cope to deal with Michelson-Morley's null result. their interferometer did not shrink during the experiment. of course, no one measured it; it's all a mathematical fiction. the earth is at rest

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:30:41 UTC No. 16591115

>>16590719
Yeah it does, it's called yo mama cuz the fat bitch will drain even space

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:26:08 UTC No. 16591132

>>16589894
Whether a force is real or not is merely a matter of perspective.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:00:39 UTC No. 16591244

>>16590885
my point is that even if we make something which exhibits the opposite effect to how matter distorts space-time, be it antimatter or some other form, it would still fall down on Earth, due to the fact that we'd make way too little for the effect of it to matter (kek). especially if dealing with few atoms. they wouldn't be able to counteract the effect that Earth has on local space-time.
>If you smash matter and antimatter into each other, what do you get?
yeah thought about that as well, matter+antimatter result is energy which distorts spacetime like matter. antimatter was just an example, as they ran that "falls up or down?" experiment recently with few atoms. which I don't get anyway, why would they expect such a small quantity falls up?
if antimatter did have the opposite space-time distortion you'd need an Earth sized ball of it, and even that wouldn't "fall up", or rather away from Earth, it would just be stationary next to Earth, since it's distortion would just cancel Earth's distortion. you'd need an even bigger than Earth planet made of such material, and that would push Earth away, once it's bigger than Earth.
also what is interesting is that something which distorts space-time the opposite way, whatever type of exotic matter, it wouldn't clump together like larger bodies do, due to gravity. may still be able to clump due to other forces, em/weak/strong if affected by them, but not form large bodies like gravity does.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:36:26 UTC No. 16591374

>>16590624
Yes, things that interact cause the spacetime metric to distort, nobody denies that
>>16590640
>why we "fall" towards the center of gravity
Everything in the universe follows the path of least resistance, you just have to analyze all the interactions happening between things and realize that you're going "down" because it would take you more force to go "up", same reason why you don't sink through the crust

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:27:39 UTC No. 16591398

>>16591244
Again, it has nothing to do with the quantity.
Please read about negative mass.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:29:48 UTC No. 16591400

>>16591398
>your_hypothetical is not real please read other_hypothetical
midwit

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:47:51 UTC No. 16591405

>>16591400
I did not say your hypothetical isn't real.
It's wrong.
And while the other hypothetical may not be real either, it is at least mathematically sensible.
>midwit
retard

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:49:23 UTC No. 16591407

>>16591405
>It's wrong.
but you don't know that.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:02:21 UTC No. 16591420

>>16591407
Fun fact: there is actually a tall black man behind you, specifically behind you and nobody else.
He is always standing just outside of your field of view, following you quietly. He is completely invisible, floats and cannot meaningfully interact with our world, but I theorize he is naked and constantly dancing.
The reason this is possible is because he is made from special matter.
We do not know why this is, but I speculate it is true, as no evidence has proven that he isn't real.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:04:41 UTC No. 16591421

What is a force then anyway? It just means one object pushes another.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:14:32 UTC No. 16591424

>>16591420
holy shit you're that fucking retarded? expected you to have a modicum of point.
so "it's not true" just because you're a salty incapable retard with no original ideas? what a fucking retard

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:15:01 UTC No. 16591425

>>16591421
>What is a force then anyway
work in a system

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:29:31 UTC No. 16591538

>>16591424
Hurrr gravity is like water in a pool, antimatter must fall up because because matter is like the pool drain durrr

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 16:38:00 UTC No. 16591549

>>16591538
just because it errors your brain out doesn't mean matter doesn't drain space-time.
also aside from the pool analogy, if matter distorts space-time in the way we agree on, then some form of exotic matter that distorts it the other way around still matches for it falling in Earth's gravity. because it doesn't distort it the other way around strong enough to counteract Earth's distortion, because Earth is fucking massive compared to anything you'd manage to create for testing, of that exotic matter. the opposite distortion of that small amount of exotic matter wouldn't cancel out Earth's distortion of space-time, let alone overcome it and go up. you fucking retard.
it's like you are in a stream of water going 30mph and you're swimming the opposite way at 2mph, you'll still go where the stream is flowing, just a little slower than water is.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 02:34:27 UTC No. 16594337

>>16590867
Anti-matter is just regular matter with opposite electrical charge. Based on all experimental evidence ever collected, negative mass doesn't exist, and neither does "antigravity"

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 02:50:16 UTC No. 16594349

>>16591421
When people say things like "gravity isn't a force" what they really mean is that it's not a "fundamental force", or in other words, it has no force-carrying boson. So the only "forces" according to this nomenclature are electromagnetism (carried by photons), the strong nuclear force (carried by gluons), the weak nuclear force (carried by W and Z bosons), and the higgs force (carried by the higgs boson).

There are lots of things that act like a force should (i.e. do work over distance, accelerate stuff over time) that don't have a force carrying boson. For example, your ass doesn't fall through a chair because it pushes up on you. But the chair isn't sending bosons into your ass. Rather, it's because the Pauli exclusion principle which doesn't let the ass electrons and chair electrons exist in the same place with the same spin. When you get stuff like this, or like gravity, we call it a "virtual force".

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:11:11 UTC No. 16594365

>>16590640
Here's my best explanation. In an uncurved universe, everything would just travel in straight lines at constant speed until they bumped into each other. That's just inertia. In a curved universe, we have to expand our understanding of inertia. Things actually like to travel on special curves which look like straight lines when you zoom in on the space. We call those curves "geodesics". If you think about space as being made of a rubber sheet, a geodesic is just any curve which you could make by flattening the sheet, drawing a straight line on it with a marker, and then letting the sheet go back to its curvy self. Intuitively, they're just straight lines which live in a curvy world. Aside from trajectories, I can think of one other area where you have an intuitive interaction with geodesics: walking straight on the earth. If you were to pick a direction and walk perfectly straight in that direction (not curving left or right at all), ignoring the oceans, you'd eventually end up right back where you started. You're walking perfectly straight, but you live on a curved 2-d surface, so your path ends up being a circle.

Unless you apply an outside force them (we're excluding gravity here) all trajectories are geodesics. When something in space "falls" towards the earth, you're really just traveling in a straight line according to your inertia at the start. That straight line just gets bent with the rest of space, and the direction it bends just happens to be pointing at the earth.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:48:17 UTC No. 16594643

>>16589894
you just wait until you hear about this subtle concept called correct spelling.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:56:35 UTC No. 16594650

Eisenstains theory does not explain where gravity comes from, but merely does the spacetime distorting monkey business you already understand from special relativity.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:04:39 UTC No. 16594698

>>16594650
Objects fall because the deformations of spacetime try to merge into a cohesive dip.
Place two balls in stretched out sheet. Given enough time, the fabric yields to the indentation formed by the two balls and brings them closer at faster rates.
The "pull" is from intent desire of an inert medium trying to reach the least energetic state.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:08:08 UTC No. 16594700

>>16590224
>>16590014
>>16590624

Wrong.
>>16594697

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:31:09 UTC No. 16594757

>>16594365
>When something in space "falls" towards the earth, you're really just traveling in a straight line according to your inertia at the start.
ye but notice how you keep saying "traveling" in all your examples. why do I fall towards Earth if I'm stationary relative to Earth? in space. why fall towards it without moving along the curved line? I get following the curved line if you are moving through that bit of curved space. but why "fall" along it without moving in relation to what's causing the curving of space?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:34:06 UTC No. 16594759

>>16594698
that's a 2D metaphor, people keep insisting on 2D metaphors. it also doesn't explain the falling bit, if stationary to eachother.
I noticed all people somehow find it intuitive that "you fall" towards what distorts space-time, without realizing they imply something is attracting you somehow. there's no reason to fall, but there is reason to move along the curved space IF you are moving in relation to what's creating the distortion in space. you'd follow the distorted space. IF you are moving, that makes sense to me.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:57:51 UTC No. 16595225

>>16590014
Space has no properties and time is a human construct.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:58:54 UTC No. 16595229

>>16595225
>Space has no properties
Nature abhors a vacuum and the ether exists

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:08:37 UTC No. 16595240

>>16595229
Space isn't a vacuum. It is void of everything. EMPTY

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:10:38 UTC No. 16595247

>>16594698
This does not explain where the desire&energy comes from i.e. elastic forces between the sheet's atoms.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:13:33 UTC No. 16595254

>>16595247
They want me to stop saying clip the left, stop saying you should ban polyamory and homosexuality, they're hoping they're going to marry me into one of their fucked up pedophile rings because they're psychotic and want my sperm.

However, I can go anywhere I want whenever I want, they just continue to leak every last bit of my personal information. Because they're psychotic, and homosexual.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:14:46 UTC No. 16595257

They have an einstine but can't market him because hes heterosexual and pro monogamy. Wouldn't that look bad for intelligence.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:28:09 UTC No. 16595278

>>16595247
Quantum Field Theory
Best model that attempts it
Light is a perbutation of the electric field, forced to oscillate because the sharp change in its field forces distortions at its immediate vicinity.
Gravity is the inert drag of the Higgs field disturbed so much the bodies are brought closer as counter balance

the 2D sheet analogy

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 05:16:03 UTC No. 16595948

>>16595278
So when you go to quantum particles you explain it more, as general relativity does not explain it. And quantum field and huggs field are just fancy way to say Aether.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 06:26:54 UTC No. 16595981

>>16595948
maybe yes. there used to be consensus amongst scientists back in the 1800s that virtually all matter is made up of dense or high energy electromagnetic waves contained in a small location
that idea is still around though not popular or appreciated

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:03:28 UTC No. 16596046

>>16594757
I get your point. Had to think about a response to this for a bit. I think my geodesic explanation still covers your concern, though it takes a bit of legwork to think about why. Here's an example to illustrate:

When you throw an object upwards, its trajectory is a geodesic. If I throw an object straight up (no horizontal motion), there's a point in time all the way at the top where it is perfectly stationary in space relative to your position (also relative to the center of gravity of the system). The whole time it's in the air, it's just following that geodesic, even when it's not moving in space. So the answer to "why does it fall back down if it's not moving at time t?" is still the same answer: trajectories follow geodesics. A minute detail that I think makes this rigorous is that the geodesic isn't just a path through space, but a path through space-time. Even when the ball isn't moving through space, like at the top of the throw, the ball *is* moving through space-time, since time keeps ticking away.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 15:22:14 UTC No. 16596417

>>16590664
flacid platinotian's vs erectil minkowsky's.gif

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 23:14:55 UTC No. 16596872

>>16590715
anon, if your analogy is wrong then it is wrong. you're trying to mentally model something you don't understand in the first place and coming up with erroneous conclusions. it doesn't matter if it's your analogy that you came up with five minutes ago. it's wrong to begin with.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 23:33:38 UTC No. 16596889

>>16596872
notice how you also fail in explaining why you actually fall.
in my model if space is being drained by matter you are moving through it at 9.8m/s^2
instead of rambling like a clueless drone you could have had a meltdown about muh proper time and shiet