Gravity is real and Einstein is full of shit.It is only analogous to acceleration for point particles in perfectly uniform fields (which are pretty much equivalent to fields that don't exist) - making equivalence principle a circular logic - "if I make my system equivalent then it's equivalent".In any more complex system than the above gradient of the gravitational field can be detected and measured due to the tidal forces it causes.
>>17030069Yes it's also not geometry. I have some other pro mainstream posters telling me that relativity says nothing philosophical. But then suddenly it tells us "oh reality is a 4d spacetime which curvature causes gravity". Eibstein faggots are ful of shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Are you the same shitard who didn't yet refute my math in your other Gravity thread?
>>17030130Its mathematically very precise ok. Doesnt mean it explains reality, doesnt mean spacetime exists. What would you say if an aether model predicts the same results?
>>17030125>telling me that relativity says nothing philosophical. But then suddenly it tells us "oh reality is a 4d spacetime which curvature causes gravity"This appallingly ignorant shit is why scientists don't waste their time responding to your emails.
>>17030151Scientists have nothing to offer themselves.When they do - they publish and if it's worth anything (if only just a sliver above their regular bs, paper factory trash) they immediately get a nobel prize.Physicists are so useless recently they had to give prize for physics to computer scientists - because there was no one deserving it otherwise.
>>17030151I never wrote one of these emailsSee >>17030155 why
>>17030151Also you are the ignorant one of you keep beeing ignorantt how relativity cant ignore philosophy.
>>17030141>Its mathematically very precise ok.not the point. the link shows you dozens of tests that verify the model.>Doesnt mean it explains realitythe mathematical precision does not. the verified tests, which is included in the fucking link (which you obviously didn't read) however, does. >doesnt mean spacetime existsthe proof is in the pudding. cosmic muons should not be detectable on earth given their short lifespan. yet, we do detect them. time dilation through relativity closes this gap--we detect them because in their rest frame not enough time has elapsed for them to decay--because they have such fast speeds. not to mention the concord experiments proving time dilation occurs from moving with velocityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experimenttime dilation requires space and time being treated on equal footing via a unified metric (e.g. minkowski metric) and the postulate of the constancy of speed of light (special relativity).>What would you say if an aether model predicts the same results?i'd be impressed. but alas, they do not. this is why they were abandoned. sure, some results may be predicted by aether models. the problem is that aether models made predictions that failed to come true (see: michelson morley experiment)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experimentin fact the blank results for the luminiferous ether are what led einstein to developing his theory of special relativity. as fate would have it, special relativity made concrete, testable predictions that eventually came true (which aether theories DID NOT PREDICT). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
>>17030069Einstein agreed with you 100%. The gravity field is real, events are real, spacetime without gravity and events isnt. Good job trolling those mindless GR cucks
>>17030164>the link shows you dozens of tests that verify the model.Wrong wording, the right wording is "they support the model". One test can never verify, not even 100 tests, while one failed test can falsify.>muonsBest example, lorentzian aether explains muons just as well. No spacetime needed. But lorentz transformations are always needed.>keatingYes ok the gravity part is not explained by lorentzian aether. So yes aether models have a problem here for now.>in fact the blank results for the luminiferous ether are what led einstein to developing his theory of special relativity. as fate would have it, special relativity made concrete, testable predictions that eventually came true (which aether theories DID NOT PREDICT).>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativityThis is not quite right.A lorentzian aether was already in place and working and explained the MM experiment.Now in my opinion, since Einstein knew about this model, he just thought of postulates to replicate its success and that was how SR was developed.
>>17030176>I can ignore the thousands of tests that fail the aether models because one test supports it>but I can ignore the thousand tests that support relativity because you can never really ‘prove’ anythingThis is why no one takes /sci/zos seriously.
>>17030162You are a moron for interpreting the descriptions given by PHYSICS models of PHYSICAL reality as being abstract philosophical arguments. You have zero self awareness.
>>17030178Thats not my argument and a strawman. I admitted current weaknesses.
>>17030187See>>>17030185The physical model demands spacetime as the only reality, of course this needs to be seen as abstract philosophical argument.
>>17030176>why yes, relativity and aether support that, see aether is great!>um, okay, so relativity explains that data and aether doesn't - but think of the aether!dumbass lol
>>17030176>one failed test can falsify.>>17030176>Yes ok the gravity part is not explained by lorentzian aether. So yes aether models have a problem here for now.Lol. Lmao.
>>17030191> of course No, there is no "of course". You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of and point of scientific models.
>>17030202>dude I make MASSIVE claims about reality>no I don't need to justify that philosophicallyYes you do. Of course.>>17030193>>17030201Fine, I see you when aether can explain the rest.
>>17030069Why people in this century refute inteligent people from the past. But not the ones from this century? Is the ego so high? The masters degree from MIT? Elon Musk?
>>17030206This image>>17030202Is the beginning and end of the justification
>>17030202To be precise the "construct a hypothesis" part is where the problem is. If you hypothesis has all these huge philosophical terms you can't just pretend they don't need justification.
>>17030210No, you can't just make a hypothesis that does all >>17030185this and then not justifying it philosophical in any coherent way.
>>17030210>>17030212And this is exactly the big flaw of modern physics and the reason it's stuck on 110 year old models that can't be unified or extended to the whole universe.
>>17030211>you can't just pretend they don't need justification.Read the rest of the model dumbass
>>17030215Test with experiment is not enough if >>17030212
>>17030214The only "big flaw" with modern physics is it's exposure to the general public who can't tolerate any degree of exhaustive rigor or especially any degree of "we don't know" and immediately thinks there's some big crisis where scientists think they know everything and need to be taken down a peg because they got arrogant and thought they knew all the answers because you're a bunch of retards who can't stop yourselves from projecting your own personality traits onto everyone else.
>>17030216Not an argument
>>17030218Your pic or text was also no argument.
>>17030217The "we don't know" is 90 years old. Eibstein tried to solve it. No other field has the same big question for 90 years now.
>>17030218I fact of course mine was an argument, in fact I gave many >>17030191>>17030206>>17030211And your "not an argument" was just helpless because you never engaged precisely mine.
Fun fact. Einstein already addressed your aether arguments over a century ago, refuted them, provided an alternative, and had his alternative make predictions unique to it (that aether cannot predict) which eventually became verified through hundreds of experiments. >Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a "specially favoured" (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it.See that last line? While special relativity offered numerous ways to test it, the lorentz aether does not. The few things it is successful in describing are already encompassed by special relativity. The numerous experiments which special relativity correctly explain, which the aether cannot, are ignored by retards. Why? I don't know. Something about Einstein in particular seems to throw them into an incurable rage.
>>17030223Fun fact. Einstein used PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS to distinct SR from aether, and now you guys try to deny us from using them.>But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory.This is peak philosophy>While special relativity offered numerous ways to test it, the lorentz aether does not.This is exactly wrong. All tests are the same, just the aether drift was untestable. Just as it's untestable that there is no aether. Pure philosophy.>The numerous experiments which special relativity correctly explain, which the aether cannot, are ignored by retards. There is not a single test like this. Why do you invent things. Or please name just 1.
>>17030225>please name just 1.Michelson Morley. It's already been cited here. And cited by Einstein to explain this to you, in the very first three words of the quote from Einstein, lol.
>>17030227Michelson Morley confirms Lorentzian aether. Next.
>>17030069No violations of the equivalence principle have ever been detected, and they've look very, very carefully.
>>17030219>>17030222
>>17030232Kek good one, but true.
>>17030220And? Is there a deadline we're supposed to meet? Shareholders we need to obey? Someone in HR we need to appease? No there fucking isn't. The work is just hard, that's all. You and clearly most people don't have the stomach for this kind of thing. You're just weak and lazy and need instant gratification. You can't pass the marshmallow test. That's all your complaints amount to, a childish lack of patience.
>>17030236At least you admit its slow as fuck while other fields progressed 10 times as fast.>>17030236>The work is just hard, that's all.Its impossible even since GR is flawed from its postulates on. You have to get rid of GR or you will never unify.
>>17030239>At least you admitWhat is there to admit in a line of work that is fundamentally built on the idea that one starts from ignorance and seeks answers? >hurr other fields behave differentlyand? and??? Finish your line of reasoning, I can't read your mind. >It's impossible"The work" isn't referring specifically to any individual model you mistakenly believe to be some sort of sacred cow. It's referring to pic related:>>17030202
>>17030240>and? and???Well it shows something is different or broken with physics and i argue number 2.>impossibleThat was my opinion to be honest.
>>17030262>Well it shows something is differentClearly >or broken with physics and I argue number 2Because you have no concept of rigor and are thus too easily discouraged by hardship to ever be capable of providing valuable insight into anything. >>impossible>That was my opinion to be honest.>"If one model becomes obsolete the entire field is brokenYou have nothing valuable to say on this topic.
