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 🤣 ! This makes me laugh, you silly #FlatTard, who cant even explain day and night on a #FlatEarth. 😜
@Froghat
@adidasJack for the 11th time, fuck off with your magic "Phase Shift", 🤣 you pulled out of your arse, you silly #FlatTard.
You totally failed to even explain wtf you even mean by "Phase Shift". 🤦♂️
A unicorn fart that dims the light? 😜 WOW!
@Froghat
@adidasJack LOL, you really are an idiot. LOL... my sides... help... LOL 🤣
Go drool somewhere else, #flerfer boy.
@Froghat
🇳🇱
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.
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?
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.
You dont seem familiar, what you just said in no way even addresses what I just said.
What about the statement you just made proves that the Ether is real and is a substance rather than made up of a field?
If you think you are familiar with this stuff (you are not) lets talk with math then. Can you please start by showing me how you think the permeability of free space would be derived mathematically, and please describe the steps you take to calculate this. For there we can discuss as you do it why it disproves the ether.
Also you being able to show you have enough knowledge to derive these equations will demonstrate you are knowledgeable in the topic as you suggest.
The truth is you dont know these basics you try to speak on, it is very obvious based on the things your saying. I am doing my best to try to get you to feel less insecure about your own lack of education and to start down the path of learning, but you seem to be unwilling to do the hard work that would take to get there...
Please no longer tag me (this is not a request).
If the day comes you wish to learn and become an educated individual who knows how these things really work, and you genuinely need or want my help, you are most welcome to reach out to me at that time.
For now though this only appears to be reinforcing your need to hide your lack of education or to convince yourself you understand things you do not. I will not be a party to that as it is harmful to both you and others to feed such behaviors.
If you have a change of heart and wish to learn reach out to me, or even if you just wish to talk as a friend (not about the psudo-science you share). But do not post me in this stuff otherwise, thank you.
It seems clear to me that not only doou not know how to derive the equation, bur you dont even know what the word "derrive" means in this context.
@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.
Did you make any progress solving that equation I sent to you yet now that it was explained to you?
I already provided it earlier and you didnt respond. I attached it here again.
@adidasJack @freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Because the light is striking the glass perpendicular to the surface? try shining the light at a different angle, not directed to the center, it will bend.
It can and i already shared with you the equation that proves it to be so. But since you havent learned the math yet you dont have the tools to see why.
Have you started working on the equation I gave you yet.
No we dont have a stalemate, I showed you a picture as well so you can "see" it with your eye. I'll post agaiin.
Now please show me the math. If you really just dont know or arent willing to learn mat then so be it, in that case I again ask that you leave me a lone until such time you change your mind.
@adidasJack
Sorry I came in late, what is this a picture of exactly? Link please?
What is the sphere?
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
He is a flat earther, he thinks the earth is flat. He doesnt understand even rudementary math or physics and mostly just makes up nonsense because he is very insecure (it seems) about his lack of education.
I've been trying to help him but he adamatly refuses to learn or work through any of the math so he can learn this stuff.
@freemo
I see. Im not a flat earther.
But I certainly am unable to believe in some mainstream claims of Physics today.
Most unacceptable is all of Einsteins work, and Quantum physics, as it is currently presented.
I am not speaking with you on this or any other topic until you've made some progress on solving that equation.
I know you can do it with a bit of practice and study you got this. We can discuss more advanced things once you've learned some basics as a foundation.
@adidasJack @freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Yes! where are they?
Where are what? Virtual particles? They arent real particles in the typical sense.
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
They are nothing at all. they are pretend, fantasy particles, and as such have no place being on the periodic table of real physical particles of real matter.
There should be some sort of separation here. Oh wait there is! One is called rational Physics, the other is called magical mystical religious belief.
virtual particles arent pretend exactly, they just cant be interacted with directly.
@freemo
But the next instant they BECOME REAL PARTICLES, so yes they can and must react with other physical processes. Thats what "pop into existence" means, unless Krauss has great difficulity in presenting advanced Physics in the english language? Maybe like all the times Einstein in his papers kept saying MASS, (special Relativity) when he actually meant to say "momentum". (yeah, right, the most brilliant genius always used the wrong word?) No, its a dodge by modern Physicists to try to overcome the impossibility that Mass can be created by motion alone. The other impossibilities of Time Dilation and Length contraction are fudged with the wonder of Mathemagics.
I am aware how they be have. Some do pop into existence, the vast majority do not.
That was never in question. What point are you trying to make from that however?
@freemo
Please explain HOW you KNOW that virtual particles really exist?
Apparently there are so many of the buggers that those that do pop, still constitute enough material to be an aether.
Myself I dont accept virtual anything as a principal in Physics, nor do I accept an aether.
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Now you are missing the point that Krauss was making. He said the IMAGINARY, PRETEND or virtual Particles, magically pop into being REAL particles.
Then pop back into pretend particles again, really quickly.
So as the place is "teaming"" with them, during the time that they are "real particles" they then constitute an aether. Please dont play with semantics to avoid the obvious problems.
Kraauss sound less of a brilliant physicist and more like a religious nutter.
@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.
It is not impolite to point out that a person who is uneducated, is in fact, uneducated. It isnt a judgment against you or your character, it is simply an obvious fact based on what you are saying, missing very basic points.
We wont get anywhere trying to pretend your educated on things you are not. The whole point of me engaging you was to help you gain education which has been neglected.
However if you claim to be educated, and perhaps I am mistaken. I am willing to accept that possiblity. That is why i asked you to show me how you derrive the equation for permiability of free space while explaining the steps you would use.
I asked you this so you have a chance to show us you do, in fact, understand basic concepts and may in fact be educated.
The stage is yours, show us you are educated on the topic, show us your understanding of the math.
As for you debunking PhD theories.. im sorry to say you **thinking** you debunked them doesnt mean you actually did. As I pointed out int he past it seems you are highly uneducated but very insecure about it and try to act as though you are educated. It would stand to reason as a result you also believe you are capable of debunking PhD's when you are not.
Again this is nothing intended to be rude, but it is something you need to realize if you want to start learning and grow past your lack of education, being in denial about it isnt helping you
Why do you keep saying i avoid things that I very explicitly explain, usually in paragraph form.
No I answered the question, you just dont have enough education to have a base understanding to make sense of it.
the sad part is when you cant understand something you assume someone avoided your questions rather than trying to understand the explanation.
This isnt the first time. I haved answered many of your questions, usually multiple times over, yet you still pretend I did not.
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.
