Worst theories in science

Relativity

Attached: relativity_light_bending.jpg (500x500, 55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_439AGRF4FU
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi

intelligent design
counterexample: you

That's unironically the best one, I feel sorry for you, user-chan. I mean, sure, jews on the whole are terrible, but Einstein was great. Do you not like Jimi Hendrix just because blacks have disproportionately higher violent crime rates? These things are just trends, there are still exceptions out there.

These, kys yourself OP.

Boltzmann brains

Why does thinking relativity sucks mean i hate jews? i just think its a shit theory with no explanatory power and meeger supporting evidence

>no explanatory power and meeger supporting evidence
Wew lad.

GR is clearly understood by millions of students and has an abundance of supporting evidence. This thread will be awful, I can tell. Great job OP.

>Worst theories in science
Flat Earth Theory

Attached: Flat vs Round Earth.jpg (700x426, 69K)

>Why does thinking relativity sucks mean i hate jews?
Well, it's the explanation that makes the most sense considering anti-relativity shitposting seems to be accompanied by /pol/ cultural marxism shitposting often enough. Though I guess the alternative that you're actually just retarded is a strong possibility too.

Round Earth Theory

Attached: Satanic NASA deception.jpg (650x650, 265K)

Trigonometry

it's not really science, but "climate change"

I got one better.

Attached: AFKbI1O.jpg (1920x1299, 534K)

Tell me how "mass bends spacetime and spacetime tells mass how to move" is an explanation of anything. wtf am i supposed to get from that? it doesnt explain how an object STARTS moving which is the interesting part.

its like gr is a complex configuration of hamster tubes that change according to how hamsters run through it. but no one explains how the hamster is moving in the first place.

it doesnt actually explain anything

being understood doesnt make it useful or accurate. people understood the geocentric model for decades

Attached: K-Pg.jpg (960x824, 57K)

Gravity
Heliocentric model
Big bang
Evolution
General and special relativity
Standard model of particles

I reject relativity because I think we will find preferred frames of reference thanks to the geometry of space / fields of subatomic particles. What does that make me?

Misguided

You honestly think that if the universe has detectable shape that couldn't give a preferred frame of reference?

>wtf am i supposed to get from that?
Well that's mostly popsci bullshit, so there's no wonder you can't understand it. Nevermind user, some people are just born brainlets.

If you want an explanation that tell us why Mass bends Spacetime then General Relativity is the first step as it tells us how.
Our scientific knowledge has been furthered by people working off of discoveries that have already been made and that is what Einstein did and that is what must be done in order to understand gravity more.
And by your logic Newtons descriptions of gravity are also useless since it doesn't have a mechanism.

>why Mass bends Spacetime
thats not what i want

what i mean is. you have a big mass bending speacetime. then a small mass is on the bent space. naturally, the small mass starts moving into the big mass. why does the small mass move as opposed to remaining stationary? there must be some mechanism. gr doesnt help us get any closer than that.

at least newton said theres an attraction between the two masses

>it doesnt explain how an object STARTS moving which is the interesting part.
By a force acting on it.
Fucksake, you should be learning about that before you come to relativity.

That would be bretty cool

Anything to do with space.

wtf are you talking about, GR DOES explain that, try actually studying it ya dingus

>why does the small mass move as opposed to remaining stationary?
Gravity you fucking retard.
That's the force that's acting on it.

Mass bending space time is a way of "visualizing" gravity.

>thinks relativity sucks
>likes jews

You're missing all the marks here

Attached: dogger.jpg (1280x720, 50K)

not if its a klein bottle

^This. The patrician stance is that jews are, on the whole, harmful parasites who undermine their host cultures, but that also some of them contribute good ideas.

>harmful parasites who undermine their host culture

This is word for word far right propaganda believed exclusively by people of extremely low intelligence and standing. Is that what patrician means to you?

I'm not familiar enough. Is it looped in some way where your coordinates don't tell you anything about your place on the whole structure?

Attached: (you).jpg (252x291, 16K)

Coordinates is the wrong word, but I think you know what I mean.

Again, an image and reply taken directly from far right brainlet shilling materials. Is that how you define "patrician"? A member of the lowest demographic of people in modern history?

in a word, yes

Attached: schoenber.jpg (225x225, 4K)

Well first try finding the center of a torus, its any point in a ring. Okay then extrapolate that another dimension so its any point in a sphere. You'd be at a loss for deciding which point was the center.

OK, that kinda makes sense. A single point can't know where it is because any orientation is impossible. I'll have to think about it.

neil tysonstein says science tits knows everythinggggggggggggggggggg

very little science stands the test of time. me thinks children will laugh at einstein like we laugh at the cavedude all the cavepress people promoted as knowing the absolute truths of the 'universe'. they will go faster than light on vacation and talk about how stupid humans were 8000 yrs ago

Relativity is the only good theory in physics desu

Yes but if we start with a point on a sphere we can know if we moved in relation to the other points on the sphere. That was my point. If you can detect the geometry of space and orient yourself in it, you just created a frame of reference, which means relativity no longer holds.

>not taking the Gary pill

youtube.com/watch?v=_439AGRF4FU

Attached: inmendham.jpg (480x360, 10K)

This can occur locally too. One thing I never understood about general relativity is that technically you can figure out if you are being accelerated by an outside force, like a physical push, or by gravity. If you have sensitive enough equipment, you can create Euclidean three dimensional shapes by algorithm so that if they don't form or form incorrectly you know that the space you are in is warped. Just like a being on a sphere can draw right triangles and figure out that he is in curved space. If you have sensitive enough equipment, you can map the space around you, and by the map you have a frame of reference for movement within that local system.

>but no one explains how the hamster is moving in the first place.
I understand where your confusion comes from since gravity in GR is not technically a force. The simplest way I can try to explain is that this is where the whole "time" part of spacetime comes in. Everything with mass is already moving through time, which in flat 4D spacetime would be nothing more than a straight line. The equivalent of this straight line in curved space time (i.e. when subjected to a gravitational field) means you would observe this object to begin moving through space.

And just keep in mind that this is a massive oversimplification - as many GR explanations are - to just explain why there is an apparent "force" of gravity to answer your question of how an object starts moving. It's not an accurate depiction of reality itself, because "motion through time" is a meaningless concept because motion requires time in the first place. Mathematically you want to model objects as their worldlines with no special preference for past/future/present, and a point in spacetime would be described as an "event" rather than an "object".

>why does the small mass move as opposed to remaining stationary?
Both masses move, even if there's a large difference of scale

>FAKE!
That FE is not a picture but CGI

>Doesn't deny any of it and just complains that it's "far right."
Look user, jews aren't all bad. They tend to be pretty intelligent and obviously jews like Einstein or von Neumann were hugely valuable scientific contributors.
We just need to keep in mind that they're basically human parasites (on the whole) and as much as possible should be kept out of politics and litigation.

Son even engineers use relativity. They have to take relativity into account to make GPS work.

They have to take into account the Lorentz Transformation, user. Relativity is a specific claim about references frames.

>Tell me how "mass bends spacetime and spacetime tells mass how to move" is an explanation of anything. wtf am i supposed to get from that? it doesnt explain how an object STARTS moving which is the interesting part.
GR is non-linear. The same complaint could be made for any nonlinear theory.

I think he is asking you to explain acceleration not changes of directions. I am iffy on that myself. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it does not.

That's irrelevant: special relativity says there are no special reference frames, general relativity is locally the same as SR but can have different geometry which can pick out a frame, which happens in our universe due to the CMB. This doesn't mean this frame is preferred to any other frame.
Fields are just defined on spacetime so they don't pick out a frame -- they fill spacetime, how could they define a frame? Now if you have an actual particle, that is to say an excitation of a field, that particle could define a frame, namely its rest frame, but that doesn't violate relativity because 1) this isn't a property of spacetime itself 2) this particle's rest frame isn't preferred to any other frame.

Where do all those anti science retards come from to Veeky Forums?

GR does explain this. Particles move on geodesics, that tells you where they go, how they accelerate etc.
My point is that in a non-linear theory you can't add solutions as you like, so you can't take some matter and see what happens when you put that in spacetime, you can only specify a stress tensor for the matter and the Einstein tensor for the geometry at the same time. That tells you where the matter is accelerating.

>This doesn't mean this frame is preferred to any other frame.
Maybe I don't understand this. It seems to me you can define motion of an object, locally, according to the space it is in and not in reference to another point/thing. See

>I'm fucking retarded and don't know what I'm talking about: the post
Unironically, you should kill yourself

You have to use more than Lorentz transformation to fix the time differences in GPS, user. It's explicitly a general-relativistic calculation based on space-time curvature near a massive object.

>inter universal teichmuller theory

500 pages of the confusing shit ever put to paper. It's been 7 years and only 5 people in the world understand it at all.

holy shit, this guy has been doing this for half a decade

Attached: 1317916412370.jpg (257x287, 12K)

You can't. There's no way of defining motion or position without external reference.

I didn't realize it was a curvature calculation.

Explain to me why I can't, with proper equipment, build Euclidean structures algorithmically and see if there is spatial distorition., confirming that motion is due to space and not an external influence.

You are free to prepare an experiment that would show motion independently of anything else but the truth is that motion is relative.

There are actually three major effects that have to be calculated in (and more minor effects). Two of them are relativistic (one from purely special relativity considerations, one from GR) and the other is basically classical and relates to the rotating frames of reference.

You need the Lorentz transform because satellites are moving fast with respect to the ground.

You also need to account for the GR effect that time intervals don't match in orbit and on the ground due to curvature of spacetime (which is normally just linearized for basic calculations)

Then there's the Sagnac Effect, which is an effect that arises due to the rotation involved.

You are missing that we are talking about accelerated motion and are falling back on Special Relativity. I am not claiming to be right, but I haven't heard of a relativistic explanation for this thought experiment: . Being able to define your motion, accelerated or not, without reference to a thing/point is the definition of a preferred reference frame.

Interesting, thanks.

Acceleration is change in motion and not motion. That's a different thing.

I am not just saying you know you are being accelerated. Of course you can tell you are being accelerated.

Maybe I am confused, as I said I didn't know if I was right. The point I am making is that objects that are affected by distortions in space-time can know that is what they are affected by and thus map out their accelerations and subsequent movement in those curved spaces without referring to outside objects/points, which to me is what a frame of reference is.

>popsci
I'm convinced the people on here who knock popsci do it because they are too stupid to take the time to understand it. If you read more about science you would be a lot more educated then you are now.

> anti-relativity shitposting seems to be accompanied by /pol/ cultural marxism shitposting often enough
Don't lie. There is enough to dismantle relativity without going into the larger political/cultural and religious ramifications of the theory. If you want to understand that go to /pol/.

Ahahaha. You're so dumb.

But not as dumb as you.

No.

Yes. I've literally done these calculations myself, when I took GR during my undergrad

I pulled Hartle off my shelf again because of this thread, he discusses the first two effects that I mentioned and their impact on GPS starting on page 121, for anyone interested.

Special Relativity was due to Lorentz and Poincare as well as Einstein. We use Minkowski's Space-Time version as well. Einstein gets all the credit for a fraction of the work.
General Relativity was due to Riemann, Minkowski, and Hilbert as well as Einstein. Again, Einstein gets all the credit.
Seems pretty jewish.
The one guy who most often gets his just due credit is Minkowski, who is also a jew.

but spacetime is just math right guys?

Veeky Forums doesn't buy the meme that empty space has real properties... does it?

more trolls

Spacetime is bendable by gravity, thus it has properties ascribed to it.

>>inter universal teichmuller theory
That's math, not science.

It's also tit for tat the entire reason jews have been hated and kicked out of countries for thousands of years. Far right propoganda has only been around so long.

You should try getting an actual education instead of spouting nonsense you read on low IQ echo chambers.

>doesn't deny any of it
That entire post is implying you're stupid for believing what you believe, which is a fact. Is that not denial to your tiny little brain?

lol

that's not in science

>What are newtons laws?!?!? They explain the experiments, but what the hell does""""""a gravitational force """"" mean

we can never truly understand what these forces or particles or anything fundamental in the universe "IS"
We can make predictions and make experients, but we can never truly understand what those ""mean""/represent

Attached: teaching_physics.png (692x313, 35K)

You can calculate the effects of space curvature on a hypothetical satellite all you want, but it doesn't prove anything, for obvious reasons.

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi

The person who made that comic doesn't know how to answer the question about what causes curvature, the answer wasn't boring, as much as it is irrelevant and wrong.

No you idiot, pointing out that people you don't like support an idea isn't the same as denying the idea is true. Try using an argument next time.

OP IS CORRECT

It's good, but it's hardly correct and it only gives theorists difficulty trying to quantize it. We should scrap GR altogether and build a new quantizable gravity theory.

The fact that you are using reddit spacing is indicative you dont understand how to use the english language so it isnt a surprise you cant grasp GR.

itt: /pol/ trying to ruin yet another board yet failing miserably because the average Veeky Forums poster is levels above /v/ or /tv/

>itt: /pol/ trying to ruin yet another board yet failing miserably because the average Veeky Forums poster is levels above /v/ or /tv/
Ehh, not really true. Hs who read some popsci and wikipedia aren't exactly very knowledgable. Hell, even in generals there are really only a few who know something, but a lot of the PhD/PhD students have moved on. There's a lot of threads that go on and on because some kid falls for /pol/ bait and doesn't know shit beyond superficial level so he only has meme answers any autistic poltard can turn around.

Posting on /pol/ should always result in a weeklong ban from every other board.

Alternatively, jannies should enforce off topic rules for /pol/sters. Can't even fap to anime tiddies without those fags showing up anymore.

Linamoe zeaƱta

Not really. /sci is mostly overconfident kids who read wikipedia.
To be fair, pol has some very smart trolls.

Good for the kids though. Being curious enough to read that shit means they might be curious enough to actually learn it later.

Wikipedia has always led me astray. I stopped reading it years ago. I make stupid mistakes more but figure a lot more out. It is worth staying away from.