Thread 16840742

niggas will tell you it’s a 4D manifold, a metric, a vectorfield or whatever... basically just descriptive abstract math shit. or That it's “nothing” but also “expands.” That it has no substance but can bend, ripple, and carry waves. That light redshifts not because it loses energy, but because “space itself stretches.” Don’t ask what stretches. Don’t ask what it stretches into. dont ask how space is connected.

what a load of barnicles...
Modern physics has no clue what space is. maybe space has mass, maybe space is just baseline potential for mass. the jews dont really know even if they claim they do. yet all of their gay theories are built on shit like spaces and fields which they do not really understand.

this kind of thread always does a great job of summoning the "i know everything about the entire universe" narcissists

>>16840742 (OP)
Space isn't anything. It's some implicit background against which spatial relationships are conceptualized. It's purely in your head and it's purely abstract.

>>16840745
>narcissists
Only the R-website uses the N-word (and it's always projection).

>>16840747
>purely abstract.
no its not. space is real. what connects point a and b in space. u dont know.

>>16840747
>Space isn't anything
>aka space doesnt exist

the absolute state of modern physics...

>>16840742 (OP)
It's a quantum fielderino

>>16840757
>It's a quantum fielderino

>What actually is space?
This board hates Philosophy, so you'll never get an answer.

>>16840742 (OP)
>what is 2+2? and don't say 4
What do you want if not a mathematical description, a metaphor that sounds deep but is complete nonsense? "Space is like a balloon" or "space is like a folded piece of paper" ?

Our brains are made to live in a small patch of land on a small planet. We are not equipped to intuitively understand the superstructure of the universe. Math is the tool we invented to be able to frame these questions and their answers

>>16840774
>This board hates Philosophy
Science refuses to acknowledge its own FUNDAMENTAL limitations.
Science is essentially the Uncle Ruckus of philosophy.

>>16840742 (OP)
>>Modern physics has no clue what space is. maybe space has mass, maybe space is just baseline potential for mass. the jews dont really know even if they claim they do. yet all of their gay theories are built on shit like spaces and fields which they do not really understand.
Come up with something better then, genius

>>16840742 (OP)
>What actually is space?
enlighten us oh wise one
>maybe
nevermind

>>16840750
you're too full of yourself to recognize your revolting personality disorder, but thats why your family and everyone else hates you.

Everything's already happened anyways so who cares

Space is nothing. It is absolute potential.

>>16840742 (OP)
I will tell you that it is not a vector field.
Vector fields live on spacetime.
>Modern physics has no clue what space is
True, but we still need it. Turns out it's hard to come up with a physical regime that gives rise to time and space, not that you would be satisfied with that.

>>16840924
>I will tell you that it is not a vector field.
It's a tensor field

>>16840742 (OP)
Space is actually superfluidic

>>16840742 (OP)
How can you explain what "space" is while being within space itself? It's a philosophical, logical, and mathematical impossibility. Any way you describe space is merely speculation.

Its nothing.

>>16840898
What a fucking moron lol

>>16840742 (OP)
Space is the resulting vector of three length dimensions, pick the size and units yourself.
Space is also linear or you'll throw Einsteiniacs into a hissyfit.

>>16841570
>Space is the resulting vector of three length dimensions,
take a pic of the fucking vector in your room then. go ahead, share it with us smartass.

>>16841415
>>16840898
If space is "nothing", then how we can have more space and less space in a room?

>>16841590
By adding/subtracting present matter? Are we being serious here?

>>16840742 (OP)
>a metric
>abstract math shit
smoke another turd retard
If can't conceptualize a metric of space you are the biggest waste of energy.

>>16841733
>abstract = complicated
you dont even understand what the word
>abstract
means and you didnt even get the point you idiotic braindead fuck.

Earth is flat with a dome.
God exists.

Aliens don't exist.
Space isn't real.
Never went to the moon.
Nukes don't exist.
Evolution is a lie.
Germ Theory is a lie.

The world is ruled by secret societies that worship Satan. Jews/Jesuits/Freemasons/Illuminati are Gnostics and Kabbalists. Masters at deception. One satanic philosophy is inverting reality.

They make you think you live on a spinning ball.
They make you think you're just an animal.
They make you think there's a deadly virus out there.

Luciferians are behind liberalism, feminism, socialism, marxism, communism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, social decay and degradation.

They despise, and want to destroy:
- Religion, specifically Christianity
- Family
- Nation
- Property

Hence these civilizational concepts are under relentless assault to make way for their satanic New World Order led by the Antichrist after a fake alien invasion known as project Blue Beam.

ALL of these conspiracies hinge on the original, mother of all psyops and hoaxes: Earth being a ball floating in nothing, revolving around the sun (remember, the satanic cabal are pagan sun worshippers..)

SHADOWBANNED FLAT EARTH VIDS/RESOURCES:
https://pastebin.com/jk2hAdmh

>>16840742 (OP)
>Modern physics has no clue what space is.
I'll give you a history lesson OP.

Physics was in a huge state of embarassment because orbits are mathematically unstable.
If you toss a handful of steel balls at a disk magnet, the balls will not enter into stable orbits, because orbits are not mathematically stable. The steel balls will crash into the magnet as predicted by the equations of projectile motion.

So Einstein said "what is space-time is curved in a cone shape around heavy masses". And by doing this Einstein saved the enormous mathematical problem in physics that orbits are not stable.

The end.

Oh by the way did Einstein give a mechanism for the bending of space-time? No he did not ... it just made the math work on the heliocentric model.

>>16840742 (OP)
>What actually is space?
Honestly, you must think in terms of spacetime for any this to even begin to make sense. Spacetime is this tacky substance that phat particles interact with to slow down and waste some. We have to do this because it's always being made. You make space. You make time. You make spacetime. More of it all the time.
Spacetime grows like plant cells. Bloop, bloop, bloop. New bloop of spacetime on this branch. Same space, just more.
Only place where the plants growth is compressed is in a black hole. A 4D hydraulic press on spacetime.

>>16842274
Are orbits “mathematically unstable”?
No. In the Newtonian two-body problem the bound solutions are stable ellipses (Kepler orbits). Small nudges give you another nearby ellipse, not a crash. This is textbook mechanics and is formalized by Bertrand’s theorem, which says an inverse-square force (like gravity) produces closed, stable bound orbits. Many-body systems can be chaotic over very long times, but the Solar System’s orbits are stable on billion-year scales.

“Steel balls and a magnet” isn’t a valid analogy.
The balls roll with friction and lose energy, so they spiral inward. A bar/disk magnet doesn’t create a central inverse-square force; the force on magnetized steel roughly follows dipole fields that fall off like ~1/r3 and depends on geometry. That setup is nothing like the conservative 1/r2 gravitational field in space.

Did Einstein curve spacetime to “save” unstable orbits or heliocentrism?
No. General Relativity (GR) was developed to reconcile gravity with special relativity and the equivalence principle, and to fix places Newtonian gravity already showed cracks (e.g., the unexplained part of Mercury’s perihelion precession, light bending, gravitational redshift). In the weak-field limit, GR reduces to Newton’s law, so it doesn’t “save” orbital stability—it agrees with it and adds tiny corrections (like the small precession of planetary ellipses).

>>16842292
>Small nudges give you another nearby ellipse, not a crash.
No they do not.
(1) First up you have to acknowledge that everystep of the orbital mechanics equations ASSUMES that the object is moving in an orbit, and that the orbit is stable unto eternity. That's an enormous assumption.
(2) Centripetal forces only exist under geometric restraint, such as a string or curved cone geometry. A "free falling orbit" does not induce centripetal forces.
(3) An orbit at lower altitude requires greater kinetic energy and greater total energy to maintain orbit. This means that orbits are NOT FUCKING STABLE! The slightest nudging away from your mathematically defined orbit the object is supposedly following will cause it to crash.

>“Steel balls and a magnet” isn’t a valid analogy.
>The balls roll with friction and lose energy, so they spiral inward.
Science museum use "tossing marbles on a cone shaped table" to demonstrate how gravity supposedly works. Except it is a false analogy because the marbles are constrained to move in orbital motion by the geometry of the curved table. However when you try the same experiment on a flat surface, there are no centripetal forces on free-moving objects, meaning the motion of the marbles is governed by projectile motion, which predicts they rapidly smash into the magnet. Orbits do not occur because free moving objects not constrained by geometry do not experience centripetal forces.

(4) Look at the centripetal forces acting in an elliptical orbit. Keplers equations ignores the changing angle in an ellipse, and does not modify the centripetal force to account for it. What a joke.

>>16842292
Imagine the ISS flying at 28,000 km/hr at 400km above the surface of the earth.

The "curvature" of the earth will cause the ISS to gain altitude above the earth's surface.

The orbital equations assume that the ISS must follow orbital motion, so it makes a force of 900,000kg to lift up the ISS just enough to maintain a perfect mathematically defined ellipse.
WHY WHY WHY???
Please think about how rediculous it is to believe that a centripetal force acts on the ISS. The centripetal force only exists on account of a mathematician constraining the ISS to follow an ellipse.

However if the ISS were flying in projectile motion, it would crash into the ground in 5 minutes flat.

>>16842292
>Did Einstein curve spacetime to “save” unstable orbits or heliocentrism?
...
proceeds to explain how einstein was in fact trying to save the heliocentric model