The big question is what was Einstein building his "space-time" gravity off of? Certainly not Newtons work
Where do you want to go with this? Thinly veiled flat earth thread?
>>17075295>innate, inherent, and essentialDoes each of these words add something distinct to his message, or is he just stringing synonyms together for the sake of clarity?
>>17075302>be a good goy and keep your head in the sand. There is nothing profound or groundbreaking to be seenok my bad
Surely when you get to the bottom of physics some things will HAVE to be innate
>>17075292>can't debate theory based on empirical data>has to trawl historical documents for word salads some long dead physicists shat outlol>>17075306you know what happens to feds, right?
>>17075292I went through this one slowly and reached a conclusion. Gravity works out at a distance and there was no dark matter.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJcQLHqOziM
>>17075369>"debate" theoryscientific theories arent up for debate. In order to have any science theory you must have a natural science experiment beforehand. Can you tell us the experiment thats ascribed to the theory you are talking about? Its literally the prerequisite my nigga>empirical dataWe dont change our minds unless we have experiment. There is no observing-and-declaring, just-so-story, or baseless assertions>you know what happens to feds, right?sorry, I thought the information would be game changing, not sure what any of it has to do with "feds". Mind explaining that?
>>17075370Gravity doesnt exist if it cannot be defined. reification fallacyIf gravity is the thing that causes things to go down then explain why there is gas pressure. gases are produced at ground level meaning they go up and every direction
>>17075530NTA but you do know about...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity...right?
>>17075306>goy>>17075530>reification fallacyIf it talks like a flat earther...
>>17075304They are similar enough that hr might jist be stringing them together for flowering up the prose, but it could also be intentional to cover a lot of semantical ground, with innate meaning "X property is a part of Y", inherent meaning "X property began as a part of Y", and essential meaning "X property is essential to Y". But idk really.
>>17075658why would they be called "tests" and not "test experiments"? because none of them are. GR isnt a natural science its a religion>>17075665>If it talks like a flat earther...this isnt a refutation or rebuttal to anything. Its called guilt by association or character assassination. Only jews make these types of remarks in order to shut down the discussionI can say you talk like a fucking faggot. But is that a refutation or rebuttal to the substance of what youre saying? No it isnt
>>17075304>Does each of these words add something distinct to his message, or is he just stringing synonyms together for the sake of clarity?You can say shit inherently attracts flies, but insofar as shit can exist without flies and vice versa, the attractive force is merely a property of the situation where flies and shit coexist in close proximity, rather than of flies or shit alone. Of course, this inherent attraction IS rooted in something innate to shit, namely the smell. But an old, weathered turd can lose the smell and still be shit, so the smell is not essential. As you can see, it's very nuanced shit.
>>17075528>Can you tell us the experiment thats ascribed to the theory you are talking about?you mean GR and SR experiments? There's countless of those. Wikipedia is your friend.
>>17075714Einstein never preformed a science experiment in his life. Change my mind
>>17075723that tons of other people verified it is far more convincing. >but those weren't the terms i set!cause they were retarded
Newton was more interested in a gravity based cider mash than theory.Einstein was only interested in watching the Nazis burn in a nuclear fire.Neither are the heroes we deserve.
>>17075304Autistic>>17075528>scientific theories arent up for debate.Retarded nigger. By definition of science they are.>>17075528>We dont change our minds unless we have experiment.Oh really? Well how did everyone change their mind from a lorentzian aether to SRT then?
>>17076052SRT would have been utterly unsatisfying without GRT. Anything that is SRT equivalent without providing a GRT generalization is not even worth considering beyond "hey this is a nice physical picture".
>>17076052>Retarded nigger. By definition of science they are.so "nuh uh" is your only response retard. Do tell us how the definition implies "up for debate", meaning subjective.A citation cannot and will never contradict another citation. Because science theory is objective, not up for debate.>Well how did everyone change their mind from a lorentzian aether to SRT then?"everyone" is an ad populum fallacy. That doesnt entail an experiment existing
>>17075295lol. newton was truly a retard... like most mathematicians
>>17075292Building off someone's work does not mean nor imply one must come to the same conclusions as them.
>>17076210>I stood on their shoulders to cut off their heads.Kek.
>>17076218It's cute that you post this thinking you're making anything resembling a valid argument.
>>17076210>Desperately trying to justify blatant continuous plagiarism because you are utterly pathetic and incapable of making a lasting meaningful contribution.The majority of the scientific community knows you are full of shit no amount of academic prestige or clout will revise history you are just going to have to deal with it. You lost.
>>17076234>The scientific communitywhich you aren't part of, lol>you lostwho won in your imaginary game?
>>17076563You will never receive any payment whatsoever for openly admitting and bragging about serious fraud. Get a real fucking job.
>>17075292Then why does relativity collapse into newtonian mechanics when you set c equal to infinity in the retarded Green’s function? Sci is so brain dead these days
>>17076570There are like three different layers of your inbred nigger retardation to your post which would all need addressing before you are even worth acknowledging.1. What is your exact definition of plagiarism? If it hinges on your gut feelings, then you just out yourself as an NPC.2. As far as the validity of a physical theory is concerned, who wrote down what is absolutely irrelevant. Cult of personality shit is irrelevant to anyone but NPCs. This feeds into:3. Do you want to discuss historical attributions to findings, then fuck off to >>>/his/. If you want to discuss SRT or GRT, you must be able to do so on terms that matter to empirical observation. This thread is just a bunch of cowardly mumbling, smearing and shit flinging.
