You can always find out if you are in space accelerating or on earth if you test tidal forces on your body
which is why the field equations in GR describe tidal forces instead of a Newton-like gravitational field
>>17066194Well its still a shit principle if you then say: oh its only real for a tiny lenght. Also why are physicists everywhere telling the public the story with the box then?
>>17066188>aetherschizo makes another thread now that his other dog shit almost hit bump limit
>>17066205The Schrödinger thread was epic thats true. But you have an argument against my op aswell?
>>17066206This thread is on par with 0.99.. threads and frog posts. You are free to publish your findings (lol)
>>17066208>no i dont want to discuss science hereUhm why again are you posting here?
>>17066211your "theory" yields makes the same empirical predictions, then I don't care. YWN advance anything beyond reproducing your betters so.. what science?
>>17066214That was a question about what is disturbing you. But that was not the question. It was: Uhm why again are you posting here if you dont want to discuss science?
>>17066188But you are always in space and you are always accelerating relative to some frame of reference>anon learns that it's all just motion
>>17066188There is a key word missing here:>locally
>>17066256Well >>17066202
if quantum foam makes particle pairs that dissapear, if you travel at 99% speed of light and perform some experiment to look for these particles, would they show up as moving at 99% speed of light relative to you? if they are generated from the fabric of space?
>>17066265Assuming these exist, which i dont really believe. They should aswell travel with 99% of c. So at 0 relativ speed. Relative to the CMB i guess you mean right? Well these things are usually lorentz invariant. But i think your claim should be tested if possible.
>>17066267interesting. is there a practical way to to test this I wonder
>>17066275Well not that sureIt does in the dicrection of this, tests for an absolute reference frame. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12421
>>17066303>https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12421>However, discarding all historical aspects, it was emphasized by Bell that achange of perspective, from Special Relativity to a Lorentzian formulation, could becrucial to reconcile hypothetical faster-than-light signals with causality, as with theapparent non-local aspects of the Quantum Theory. In addition, the present view ofthe lowest-energy state as a Bose condensate of elementary quanta (Higgs particles,quark-antiquark pairs, gluons...), indicates a vacuum structure with some degree ofsubstantiality which could characterize non trivially the form of relativity which isphysically realized in nature. So, there may be good reasons for a preferred referenceframe but, without the possibility of detecting experimentally an ‘ether wind’ inlaboratory, the difference between the two formulations remains a philosophicalproblem.good interesting paper anon
>>17066334Thanks. Yes this modern causality bullshit is all based on a einstein definition. Instant signalling in a lorentzian aether is possible in theory without anything breaking.
>>17066194Well done.
>>17066337Ok. Now show me how we can use this "instant signaling" for anything useful.I'll wait.
>>17066188Wait so gravity is just acceleration zones around very large masses? wtf so we are accelerating backwards toward the Earth? Why do masses do that at all, wouldn't it require energy to accelerate something? I remember reading that gravity bends space so that its like a 3D hill and objects just want to move in the direction of the massive object, but what about mass causes space to bend? How does it affect the space itself?
>>17066447>what about mass causes space to bendTo be clear, it's not "mass" but any sort of energy (mass-energy equivalence and all that). Energy density causes increased curvature of spacetime in the area (you can look at Einstein's field equations). The hill analogy is decently correct, in the sense that, if you were an ant on top of a hill and moved in a straight line, you would fall into a valley and have to expend more energy to get out of it (opposing gravity), in GR these are more precisely known as geodesics.
>>17066455>Energy density causes increased curvature of spacetime in the areaThat is not entirely true, the body needs to be in motion because, surprise surprise, gravity is just electromagnetism and the spacetime curvature is a relativistic effect like magnetic fields
>>17066456>gravity is just electromagnetismNo it's notFor example neutrinos don't interact with the EM field but have mass and interact with gravity>the body needs to be in motionNot spatially, no. And it's a given that the body is traveling through time. Again you should look at geodesics.>spacetime curvature is a relativistic effect like magnetic fieldsIn what sense do you mean "relativistic effect"? It's not a relativistic effect like magnetic fields.
>>17066456>gravity is just electromagnetism/sci/ - failing highschool level physics
>>17066530He made an analogy you autist>>17066456>>17066457The dipol is also missing. Yet its a decent comparison and gravity may be caused by a similar thing. Certainly better then "bending of spacetime".
>>17066709It's not better.>The dipol is also missing.In fact the opposite charge is entirely missing as well. And the field is always attractive.Also when gravity accelerates a particle it gets more gravity, which is not true of EM. This would probably lead to runaway solutions naively.You can formulate gravity in EM terms (gravitoelectromagnetism) but the equations are not Lorentz invariant.
>>17066728>In fact the opposite charge is entirely missing as well. And the field is always attractive.Doesn't this mean that Gravity has to be something different from Electromagnetism? Since there is no anti-gravity. Maybe that stuff about bending space does make more sense now actually>Also when gravity accelerates a particle it gets more gravity, which is not true of EMIs this observable with telescopes or something? Like can we see two stars dancing around or being pulled by each other's gravity and mathematically calculate the mass-energy they're gaining from each other?
>>17066756>Doesn't this mean that Gravity has to be something different from Electromagnetism?Yes, that is literally my point. Anti-gravity doesn't exist.>Is this observable with telescopes or something?We have observed gravitational waves when black holes have danced and rotated with each other then merged. These gravitational waves cause their own gravity as they ripple through spacetime.Also there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordtvedt_effect
>>17066709>He made an analogy you autistA shit one, yes. There is no magnetism equivalent, there is no negative charge equivalent, the more the analogy is looked at the less insightful it is, you might as well say a spring is basically electromagnetism
>>17066202Why do we teach classical mechanics? Because these things are correct in limiting cases for which they are derived. Just like we can replace Lorentz with Galilean invariance for slow moving objects in small to moderate gravitational fields.
>>17066457>No it's notOkay, you're right, it's only the half-truth> Again you should look at geodesics.Yes, geodesics, the cornerpoint of relative motion>In what sense do you mean "relativistic effect"?Look, many people confuse spacetime for some magical field that is being modulated when it is just a mathematical diagram of all the available positions an object can take, gravity itself is not a force per-se but the combined effect of all the forces acting on a body that distort its path through space and time.As a simplified example - if all of your particles and all of earth's particles were moving at the exact same velocity, and assuming that no external forces are acting on your combined body, then you would feel no gravitic force whatsoever, because no force would be applied to you which would change your trajectory through spacetime such that you would "fall" towards the surface.
