I Got A 10Ga. Shotgun, That Will Do Brain Washing Too, Real Dam Quik Like ! @adidasJack
@adidasJack, here is an idea - fuck off back to your #flerfer group, where you can enjoy the company of people with similar mental illnesses as you.
@Froghat
@adidasJack Cry? Why? Because YOU make a total idiot out of your self every damn chance you get? Hello no ๐คฃ ! This makes me laugh, you silly #FlatTard, who cant even explain day and night on a #FlatEarth. ๐
@Froghat
@adidasJack for the 11th time, fuck off with your magic "Phase Shift", ๐คฃ you pulled out of your arse, you silly #FlatTard.
You totally failed to even explain wtf you even mean by "Phase Shift". ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
A unicorn fart that dims the light? ๐ WOW!
@Froghat
@adidasJack LOL, you really are an idiot. LOL... my sides... help... LOL ๐คฃ
Go drool somewhere else, #flerfer boy.
@Froghat
๐ณ๐ฑ
While he was certainly being rude and antagonistic, and im sorry for that, he was right in one regard: What you said made absolutely no sense. None of what you said, including your lead in statement, reflects how the real world works.
I have no doubt that you beleive, erroneously, that what you stated was fact. However it was not.
I'm not sure if that would be fruitful. Based on your past statements you dont seem to have the intention to learn the truth, only to try to construct a weak and erroneous narrative that fits your preconceptions.
So any attempt on my part to help to educate you as to the actual science and reality is likely to be just a waste of my time and yours.
However if you are sincere in your desire to want to learn about how the world really works I would be more than happy to try to teach you and guide you on that task.
Sure, gravity is a very advanced subject but I'd be more than happy to teach you about how it works.
Most of the phrases you asked about dont make much sense so youll have to explain specifically what you mean, some do.
For example, can you give an experiment which demonstrates what you mean by "phase specific" are you referring to gravity waves (those are rare and not what we usually deal with when we talk about gravity which is a constant force)?
But to address that we will have to get into a lot of basics first. What level of math are you able to go up to, that will give me an idea of how much of the basic stuff we have to cover first.
Do you know linear algebra, Tensor math, maxwell equations, and Calculus for example or do we need to start there?
We can get into some thought experiments to demonstrate relativity rather early on int he conversation but the math itself is a bit more advanced.
Keep in mind to fully answer most of those questions we arent talking about a brief online conversation. It will require a **lot** of study on your part and based on your current level of expertise is likely to be years of study before you can understand the ideas fully.
Also gravity does not make things orbit around them. That is in fact a counter force, seperate from gravity which causes it to cancel out. There are some simple demostrations we can do to help show how some of this works.
I certainly dont mind keeping it simple and demonstrating it at a grade school level or high school level if you either are not willing or capable of studying the topic in full.
Are you familiariniertial and noninertial frames of reference and how to calculate for them? Is that what you want to learn, or do you just want the simple incomplete explanations?
Based on your questions it sounds like if you really want a good understanding we are going to have to start with rudementary physics and work our way up.
Perhaps we should start with why orbits work, for that I will need to direct you to some sources to teach you about rotations, angular momentum, vector math, all the basics, then we get into how to use that new understanding (which i will be happy to help you learn) so youc an apply it to calculating orbits and how they work WRT gravity.
Seems the best place to start for you, dont you think?
Ohh you mean **moon** phases, yes I'm well aware of how and why the moon phases effect tide.
That one is very easy to explain thankfully and we dont need to get into all that advanced stuff to do it.
It is simple really. The pull of the sun and the moon both effect tides. In both cases it will cause a very strong tide ont he side closest to the moon/sun, a weaker high tide on the far side, and low tides on either side.
I attached an illustration so you can see.
This effect occurs simultaneously between the moon and the sun, with the moon having a stronger influence than the sun.
Therefore the effects are either add together or cancel. You can imagine that when the moon and the sun are in a straight line the effect adds up as the gravity of each are in line with each other. However if the moon is at a 90 degree angle then they will cancel out and give weaker tides.
Since the moon always lines up at full or new moon, and is always at 90 degree angles at a waning or waxing half moon, it is clear to see why the phase of the moon would directly effect the magnitude of the tides.
Hope that clears up your misconceptions for you.
Here is another image for you that explains what I just said, showing how these tides overlap at various phases.
You can't simply start with advanced concepts if you dont understand the basics that would be used to describe it.
That would be like trying to teach someone to multiply without teaching them how to add first.
But if you want a simle answer that should hold you over until your have a more advanced understanding: It is a field which is emitted by all mass which is perportional to its mass and attracts anything that likewise has mass.
As a field it has similar properties to other fields like magnets or electrical fields. That is, it diminishes inversly and exponentially with distance.
Unlike magnets however that are di-pole fields (as is electrical fields) the gravity field is monpolar. Meaning it is always attractive and never repulsive.
So I guess you werent able to understand the physics and explanation behind what actually causes the tides?
What part didnt you understand, would you like me to explain, or was my original assumption correct that you have no desire to learn how things work?
@freemo, thank you for you posts but you are wasting your time with this confused #flerfer. ๐
It's the same story every time.
You get more serious and actually try to figure out, where did he fell off the train (in education or understanding the problem etc) and help him out but he starts waffling about a random old debunked nonsense.
It's like you ask, what makes day and night happen on #FlatEarth and he answers: "day changes to night and it women have periods." ๐คฆโโ๏ธ
I have no idea, what's wrong with @adidasJack, but something is seriously off.
@Froghat
Perhaps but the way I see it there are two options
1) he just was never educated. Since many would feel insecure about this it is natural to be in denial and convince yourself you are actually the only one who truly knows how things work. This is sad, but you wont combat it by attacking them or ridiculing them. It is better to let them know you will be supportive and help teach them if they want.
2) they will refuse to learn even when given the opperunity. This is often the case and in which case it is a waste of everyones time to try. With that said it still isnt productive to attack the person. Best to just let them know they are wrong, but otherwise not attack them and offer up #1 should they decide to learn in the future.
Regardless except in a few situations I dont see it as helpful to be antagonistic over it. Help if they will let you, or just walk away.. only way to result in any good as far as i can see it.
@adidasJack, and here you go again. I have bad news for you - you and your imaginary friend do not constitute "we all" . ๐คฃ
@freemo @Froghat
Is that really how you think that conversation just went?
Look I can understand you being self contious of never having a basic level of education to understand these things. Honestly I do. I am sure if you put some time into learning you can understand this, I have no wish to shame you.
But you must realize what your saying right now is obvious to anyone reading it that you dont understand the topics you are talking about, thats ok, but it isnt healthy for you or anyone else to pretend you understand something you clearly dont.
I'd rather be a friend to you and help you, if at all possible, than to ridicule you for not understanding something. But part of that requires you to understand your own shortcomings and be willing to grow past them.
No I mean education. Nothing I explain to you should be taken simply at face value. Using logic, understanding, and critical thinking, to question even well accepted facts is both welcome and encouraged.
As you do, and as you get the answer to those questions, then eventually you will learn what the reality is, in ways you can test and prove yourself and reproduce. As you do you will come to actually understand the world and how it works.
That is, in every way, the exact opposite of indoctrination. In fact, since you do not back up your own ideas in the same manner it is, in fact, you who have become indoctrinated to an ideology, it just so happens its an ideology of your own choosing and your own making, but just has harmful, and invalid as any other that cant be tested and proven.
Yes you did, its above. I explained what it is above in the thread, at least to the extent your current level of education is capable of understanding.
As I offered when i explained what it was, if youd like to go into greater detail so you can understand it even better we will have to dive into some pretty advanced topics that will take you years of study to even be able to understand the words I use or the equations I would explain to you.
Thankfully i was able to explain it in simple terms for you so you can understand it for now at your current educational level, do you have any questions about that explanation I can help you with?
I did, and I will answer again.
Gravity is a field.
Mass is not gravity no, though it is related to gravity.
Everything you just said, the parts of it that are gramatically/linguistically correct anyway could be pretty trivially disproven. We could easily show that mass is **not** made up of the same thing as the electromagnetic field. There are countless experiments that have been done to prove this, and never a single one that could support what you just said. However if you think you have such an experiment that could prove mass is "electromagnetic content" feel free.
As for "electromagnetic lines fo force" such lines dont actually exist, that is just something we scientists say to describe the path electrons take. No actual lines exist. Theya re similar in nature to the lines you'd see on a topological map.
We, scientists, have many times over.
Just because you dont have the education to understand how or why we have disproven it doesnt change the fact that it was disproven all the same.
I'd be happy to try to teach you enough so you could understand the basics and eventually understand how we were able to disprove your assertion. But as I said it is clear you are not trying to learn anything.
Again, I am leaving this conversation for those aforementioned reasons.
Yea I know its very hard for you to understand. Don't be discouraged by that, even though they are very elementary concepts I;m sure you can understand them if you try.
Just keep in mind you have had a life time of educational neglect, that isnt your fault. So elementary concepts may seem very confusing and difficult for you. but you can get it.
This is why I said you really have to go back and start learning the basic concepts rather than trying to jumpe in on topics way beyond your level. Start with really basic maths and work your way up, you will get there.
Try instead of trying to repeat the things you made up to cope with not understanding, instead try harder to actually understand and study the physics itself, fromt he ground up. Try not to give into your urge that its too confusing for you to understand. If you keep with it you will get there!
I am not in his "science" group, nor was he tagged in this conversation. It is a discussion between me and you.
I have treated you with respect and apparently your insecurities are getting the better of you because you seem to feel the need to now get childish and need to bring in other people.
Thats my cue then to exit the conversation as it is clear you have absolutely no desire to learn anything beyond your own nose.
If the day should come you wish to start learning about the world, physics, math, any of it, you are more than welcome to reach out to me and I will be happy to teach you.
Until that time, I will be disengaging from this conversation.
When you tag someone and basically go, hey look at this clown, isnt the shit he is saying comical.. then no no you arent trying to "help me" please dont lie or misrepresent yourself. It is clear that it is you being frustrated with your lack of understanding and lashing out.
If you had truly wanted to "help" me you would have tagged him in the conversation in a more respectful manner something like "Hey, could you please explain your point of view to this person for me".
I've told you twice what , it is a field.
If you dont understand what that word means or why it explains what it is, then I dont mind explaining it further. But again you dont seem to be trying to understand anything here, not even making an attempt at it, failed or otherwise.
Apology accepted, it happens, consider it forgotten.
Your ideas are and have been refuted. It would be a lot to teach but I dont mind trying to work our way through the facts that ultimately show why mass is not the same thing as an EM field.
It is a lot to go over but i have no doubt youd be capable of understanding if your willing to put in the effort.
If thats something your interested in let me know and ill start you off with some basic maths and physics you can study and we can talk later and practice together, go over it, and build on it if youd like. Eventually we can start doing EM field equations with some study im sure of it.
@adidasJack
Im familiar with the idea intimately yes, as well as why and how it was debunked.
No it doesnt use the ether, it specifically disproved the ether. It did however prove that space-time exists but it is a field, not a substance as the ether was suggested to be. This is the distinguishing difference between the two and why your statement is non-sensical.
Please, try to understand the subjects you post on first, or at least ask questions first rather than make up conclusions.
You can do what you want but please dont include me in psudo-science posts unless your purpose is to learn about the actual science. Otherwise I have no interest in the discussion if that is not the purpose.
No it isnt my way or no way. I'm not even sure how you got that from what I said.
The ether was proposed originally as an underlying substance, like a gas or a liquid, which waves (light) could pass through. The idea of it as a substance is critical to its definition and what differentiates it from spacetime which is not a substance but rather a field.
This can trivially be proven (that an ether doesnt exist) by showing that the speed of light is a constant in all frames of reference and thus does not move respective to an underlying medium.
As to your other points: yes the earth has a magnetic field.
Yes the earths magnetic field moves and changes over time (though very slowly usually).
Changing magnetic fields also cause electric fields yes, they are relativistic duals of eachother and are closely related.
None of that makes any sense on your final assertion then that "we have an electromagnetic ether". What about the statements you just made suggest that it proves the existance of an ether (an underlying substance) instead of a field. It sounds like you dont understand the meaning of the words your using at all.
No nothing about "moving magnetic declination" has anything to do with ether, this makes literally no sense at any level and is very easily disproven, as I stated we can see that by the constant nature of the speed of light regardless of the speed the observer is moving at. Thus showing the speed of these waves are not bound to an underlying substance/medium but rather must act as a field instead.
@adidasJack
I stopped reading at "The so called speed of light has been slowed numerous times " because you do not even understand what is meant by "c" and when and where it's used as constant.
Please, go back to basics. Have you actually ever read a single book on related subject? Or do you just read headlines and memes and think this is enough?
What you are doing, is #PseudoScience at best and mostly it's just gobbledygook.
This is really why you need to study the basics first, you totally miss the point as to what is meant by "the speed of light is a constant" .. that phrase is shortened from its full phraseology which is "The speed of light is a constant **in a vaccum**".
You have to understand what that means and why it is significant.
If i shoot a laser through a vacuum and measure its speed while standing still then the speed I measure will be the speed of light, C. However if i am moving int he same direction that the light is going at a very fast speed and then I measure the light again you'd expect the speed of light to appear to slow down when i measure it, but in fact the speed is measured to be the same.
Think about why this is special. If i throw a ball 10 mph in one direction then to you standing still it is going 10 mph.. however if you are running next to that same ball and you are moving 5mph yourself then the ball will appear to move at only 5mph, this is normal since its relative to your own speed.
Light however does not behave this way. No matter which way you point the laser or which way you are moving or how fast in a vacuum the speed of light will always be exactly the same.
This is the very reason why we can disprove that the light moves through any substance (ether), because if it did then it would move relative to the speed of the substance it moves through, which is not the case in a vacuum.
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
The aether was proposed to provide some sort of explanation as to how a light beam could be a wave when it propagated in space, which was considered devoid of substance, hence the quandary. No medium then what allows the wave action?
So they had to assume something was there, the aether. Thankfully much later, Dr Lawrence Krauss provided the answer, (which was not spacetime's magical "field")
Krauss said, " empty space is NOT empty, its teaming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence". So as this claim fits exactly the necessary properties of the aether, and later some Australian physicist "proved" it existed from his computer modelling, using {gasp and respect}, "Maths", then it is as good as gold, indisputable.
I dont buy krauss's claims myself, but all mainstream einstein fan boys MUST accept Krauss, as he is one of your own, and passed the hallowed peer review process.
Now you should also explain how a measurement of every point in space ( the definition of a field) is able to somehow keep a planet in orbit. By what means does a number at a location cause a physical result to occur?
Considering that a magnetic field is only local, and does not exist sans the physical magnet that is the source of the area of influence of that force, how then does a "field" exist without a physical object? Meaning that the claim is made that spacetime is a field, (when a field is but a property of something physical , NOT an entity itself) which simply means that you have reified the concept of force. Force is what a magnet DOES, the force in NOT an object itself.
You cant explain the mechanism by which a magnet causes something to be attracted or repelled, simply be claiming that the area of magnetic influence is now a thing in and of itself. So the idea that spacetime is a "field" is invalid unless you have a source for the Property called spacetime to be attached to.
Spacetime is claimed to be everywhere, but if its a field, then where is the source for the field? ( we can accept that the force called gravity whose source is the earth, creates a local field or area of influence, but the field does not extend and permeate through all of the universe. Einstein fan boys claim that it does.)
A measurement taken at every position in space is just that, a measurement, it is NOT a field.
Additionally, you have a very huge problem here with your idea of a field being a number attached to every point in space, being that you now have created by definition, an ABSOLUTE FRAME of Reference, that is STATIONARY.
How can you otherwise address every point in space, unless you know where those points are? And where they must remain to be useful to physics? Its an absolute frame of reference, complete with an origin and direction, unless you can explain to me some other way to identify every possible point in spacetime so that you can measure it? Or are all the measured points moving around like a cloud or water vapor? In which case I have to ask you, WHAT is moving? and in relation to WHAT?
No, Einstein and his spacetime creates more problems than it tries to solve.
Someone need to recognize and admit that Einstein is wrong with SR and GR, and move along with Physics.
The Quantum Foam consists of Virtual Partticles, not ordinary particles. As such it wouldnt be accurate to describe it as a substance, you cant interact with virtual particles directly. It is distinctly different from the idea of an either which describes an actual substance.
@adidasJack picking out quotes while ignoring the context is what has got you so confused. Stop doing that.
He dumped "ether" because it was flawed idea and did not work.
You seem to be completely ignorant of what the word ether was originally used to mean..
You seem to think ether means "there is some underlying fabric or medium through which waves move". But that is **not** what an ether was proposed to be. It was proposed not as any generic medium but explicitly as a "substance" like water or air. That is critical to its definition and why it is so easily debunked.
Spacetime is a medium through which light waves (and other types of waves) travel, no doubt. But it is not a **substance** like water or air would be, thus why it is debunked. It is a field, and as such has some similarities but is also fundamentally different in nature than an ether.
It is a field, it isnt made of a substance. It is made up of fields. At very small scales it can be said to be made up of the quantum foam, a collection of "virtual particles" that would be rather complex to explain at your current education level.
Also i explained, several times, why it is debunked. It was debunked because the speed you measure of waves traveling through space time (light) is the same regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.
@adidasJack
If you copy paste something, use quotes.
And again, this proves absolutely nothing because "sky has polka dots" wont make it so.
I asked you to please stop tagging me if your intent is to convince me you are knolwedgable rather than an attempt to learn.
It is a waste of both are time. I will ask again do NOT tag me unless your intention is to begin studying and want some help or guidance.
