Ask a physicist

so why physics? childhood dream? how is it like in the job market for you?

There is the possibility of an infinite materiality; an infinite singularity in a constant state of flux. See: Cyclic model.

Decades of shitty pop-sci have fucked up the public's understanding of QM beyond belief. Even I was messed up by it when i first started learning it.

QM is actually a very simple theory. Let us first discuss your broadband connection. This works by sending information through laser pulses to your computer. A quick blip of the laser represents a 1, let us say. These blips are small waves that are localized in space but they retain their shape more or less and travel along your wire. Hence are they particle or wave? Kind of both.

Now let's return to QM. Instead of hard particles with have localized smudges in space which are just like the waves in your broadband. The schrodinger equation (also called the non-linear wave equation when dealing with high intensity laser pulses) specify the complete dynamics of these wave packets.

Nothing spooky yet. I will continue with another post on the spookiness if you are still interested. I think it's important you understand a bit more about QM in order to clear up any misconceptions first.

Say it in English dude. Don't understand none of that. Oh yeah, intelligent Design. :P

Phyiscs because it gets better and better the higher you go. There is so much amazing stuff to learn about and new ways to think about the world. Everyday I work on it is a dream. I know nothing about the job market, I am right now getting paid researchbux to do theoretical physics.

I am no cosmologist, but I think that's rules out by the cosmological constant. The hubble flow will never reverse.

As a physicist do you ever block the toilet?

Fuck
There was something I wanted to ask you a couple of weeks ago but now i cant remember what it was.

Sure, I'm interested.

Ok, but the particles have distinct locations at any given point, right? I mean, they're just so small and traveling at speeds so fast that we don't have the level of sophistication to accurately analyze them (just for argument's sake)

you think technology will make life worth dealing with?

No, the particles do not have a fixed location. They are literally smudges in space.

Continuing on, the "wavefunction", which is the QM analogue of the laser pulse, gives the probability of the particle to be at some point at any given time and once measured it's wavefunction becomes localized about the position it was measured.

To make this concrete, suppose you know the distribution of heights of children in a school. I tell you I have one child behind a door and ask you to guess what her height is. You would say her height can only be described by the probability distribution of heights in the school. Now I pull her out of the room and let you measure her. Your ruler has increments of 1/4 inches so you can say that her height is localized to 5'5"+- 1/4 inches for example. The probability distribution (or wavefunction) has collapsed down to a different value upon measurement being made.

Life isn't worth dealing with now?

not for people that don't like their genes or the world as it is now

why so depressed user?

wrong user, you mean this user

That makes 0 fucking sense to me lol. I understand that they function as both a wave and a particle, but couldn't the "smudge" just be because the particles are elusive?

This is what I have a really hard time with. It just seems so absurd to suggest that the observation of ANY animal would cause something to become a reality.

Ok, but her height never changed tho

Hello, my question is why there is no visible curvature at more than 16km altitude?
Also why are all pictures of earth photoshoped?

Hello physfag OP, here's my question:

Is it true that the Universe is pseudo infinite in space as the surface of a 4D sphere? Meaning that if you go perfectly straight in any one direction you will eventually loop back to the starting point like the equator line on Earth?

What is the position of a smudge in space? All you can do is define the center of the smudge and the width of it. We expect the particle to be measured at the center but there is a variance in that it can be measured out to the side as well.

Before you knew the girl's height you could only express it as a distribution.

And here is where QM becomes conceptually difficult. The case with the girl illustrates the fundamentals of QM. However the girl has a height independent of wheither we observe it or not. In QM a particle does NOT have a fixed position or momentum until we measure it. There are no "hidden variables" in the copenhagen interpretation.

We can go to pilot wave theory where the particle has a definite position and momentum but then we get rid of locality (i.e we get very spooky action at a distance).

Hope you understand a bit more about the problem now. If you are confused about anything else I will try to explain it in terms of a "real world" problem and relate to that.

There is visible curvature. have you never been in a plane?

Are you familiar with the Grassmannian and its role in Theoretical Physics?

What, if you were to guess, is the most basic and fundamental form of the universe and all that it is comprised by and comprises?

We know that's not true. It is definitely not circular in time because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics and time-space tangent planes are hyperbolic, not euclidean. Which is to say, you can hold a flat piece of paper tangent to a sphere, but couldn't hold a 3d piece of paper tangent to the universe.

In terms of the spatial dimensions, we have no idea. It could be possible, sure. Modelling the spacial dimensions as the 3 sphere is basically the balloon model of inflation.

Hadn't heard of it until I googled it. It's a concept in differential geometry. Differential geometry I know a bit about and it is used in physics all the time to put theories on complex manifolds.

Do elaborate on your second part. I repeat I am not a cosmologist but i would say that the most basic form I can imagine is the 3-sphere x time inflating with all of classical physics operating on our local tangent plane to it.

Which Lodge do you belong to?

We are supposed to be on a ball spinning and flying in vacuum with air sticking to the surface. If you know anything about vacuums you will know air cannot exist next to vacuum without being sucked into the vacuum. Contrary to all science they say it's somehow different with earth because gravity the god are holding it down. Well there's a really simple experiment one can conduct that conclusively disproves this. Have one airchamber situated below a bigger vacuum chamber. Then connect the two chambers and see all the air go into the vacuum chamber. What does this prove? It proves that even when gravity is at it's supposed strongest close to the ground, it is still not strong enough to keep air from going into the vacuum.
With this simple example, the globe with a supposed "atmosphere" is 100% debunked.

"Gravity" is also the only force in existance that acts differently to the objects it "attracts". If we were actually attracted to a ball in vacuum by some force that happens when objects become big, this force should act upon the objects on it's surface uniformly and only the bigger objects should be able to loosen themselves from it's force. This is not observed however, blow a feather on the ground to confirm that it's not being held by some force that is strong enough to hold elephants to itself.
Heliumballons rise because they are less dense than the surrounding medium, basketballs fall because they are more dense than the surrounding medium. A feather can be easily loosened from the ground due to it's lack of severe density. No force created from giant balls in vacuum need to be supposed or even makes sense.

How does an aeroplane fly?
With this topic as well as other topics you have the 'Masonic answer' as well as the actual truth. In this instance the masonic answer differ depending on who you ask - it's all rather confused - as becoming of an "answer" that is actually just an attempt at fooling you. You can go look up the various official explanations but here is how i see it.
When an airplane flies it is always tilted somewhat upwards(also when flying level just ask any airplane pilot), so that the wings will always take the air on below the wings. It is that resistance on the wings and aeroplane body that ends up lifting the plane. Because air doesn't offer too much resistance you will have to speed up the plane to be faster than weight can drag it down and the lift force becomes inadequate. That is also why when an airplane takes off it can hold a slower speed as the wings due to their angle can receive more lift force as a larger plane will be exposed to the air.
What was the point of this explanation? Well, to point your understanding to the fact that if a plane flies fast enough when flying level it will keep flying level. If you fly faster than this it will also work of course, but there's a window of speed that you can fly within that ensures that your plane won't fall. The official explanation claims that gravity is always dragging on the plane but this is proven false by the fact that you can slow down the plane inside of this window and the plane will still fly level… If you do math on it perhaps you could still see gravity being part of the calculation(if you believed in the math model) but this "gravity's force" is as strong as a baby holding on to her mama's skirt – not something that actually makes the plane fall, much less drags it to the ground – you have to slow your speed for that to become the case… So we can see from this hopefully intuitive example(hopefully you are still following along) that it is ludicrous to assume that gravity is holding the airplane towards some ball earth. In fact, "gravity" has no meaningful power over an airplane that has overcome it! You can't have it both ways.
You should start to see where im going with this. And it is the age-old example of an airplane that starts 90 degrees on the fake ball earth and lands 90 degrees further would continually need to dip it's nose down to account for the curvature of the fictional ball… No turning of the nose is happening(ask any commercial airlane pilot) and gravityTM is not strong enough to drag any airplane towards the center of the fictional ball when gravity has been overcome and an airplane is flying. Again, you cannot have it both ways.
—-
I can try to make it even more clear. When jet-pilots are flying close to the ground, they can slow down their plane and still not crash into the ground. The reason being that they are creating enough horizontal speed and enough upforce from the wind that they are not dragged downwards. Commercial airlane pilots also have this possibility – they can slow down the plane and still fly level as long as they don't slow down the plane too much – this shows that gravity isn't dragging enough(actually gravity doesn't exist but whatever) to hold anything against the surface of a ball.

How do you measure it? How do you know it's not a measurement error? Not the same guy but I think these questions make it more clear. My question:

Gyroscopes conclusively prove flat earth
Another 100% irrefutable example is a gyroscope experiment. First you have to learn how gyroscopes function. How they work is that it is a disc that you spin up and after it is spun up no matter how you turn the "holder" around it, it will stay spinning in the same direction it was spun up. Go check youtube if you want to learn what i mean here.
Anyway, it is this very mechanism that is useful for airplanes so that no matter which direction an airplane is facing, the gyroscope in a pilots 'Attitude Indicator' will show the pilot where the ground is located(if the disc was initially spun up parallel to ground).
So the experiment is as follows. We are supposed to live on a huge ball(out in vacuum, that's spinning and moving slowly towards the even more giant sun-ball, while that is moving much faster in another direction, which is also impossible but i digress) and logically speaking if you take off and fly /around/ this ball the gyroscope should point same direction as when you take off, however that is not seen if you do this experiment. In fact the gyroscope will in stead of turning relative to spin-up direction be located relative to ground when you land say 90 degrees "around" the world.
This is 100% not consistent with a ball earth but 100% consistent with a flat plane. What the deceivers say however is that the "shpeciul" attitude indicator also have a mechanism that turns the gyro in relation to "gravity"(which is absurd. If they had a mechanism like that, using a gyro would be meaningless in the first place and they could just have used that mechanism…). However if you are a big enough fool to believe in that, all you have to do is just bring a normal gyroscope on a plane and you will see that it's behaviour is not consistent with a ball earth.
You can also just leave a spun up gyro on a table - this is actually written in the history of the earth as a proof of the round earth - and see if the angle of the disc changes. If we were constantly spinning the gyro should also change direction - the most unintuitive and ridiculous experiment possible because noone ever feels the motion of the earth - but this is /their/ experiment, it's just that if anyone else does it, it ends up proving the earth is flat.

shit genes, and no robowaifus

They tell us that the one conclusive proof of gravity is that objects fall at the same rate in vacuum no matter their size or mass, but if you watch the various videos purporting to prove this in slow motion you will see that none of the actually prove the statement. You will still see the heavier object landing first. They might try lying and saying the vacuum isn't good enough - despite them making a video purporting to prove gravity with this same vacuum they now claim isn't good enough - but the telling clue is that even if the vacuum weren't good enough(despite them first claiming it is), it should show at least some measure of effect on the objects – but it does not.
The only video you can see adhering to this principle is a nasa video that anyone can see is dubious at best were they to research it. NASA is also the biggest lying publicly facing organization in our world and have exactly zero credibility. Should we trust the proof of the illogical "force of gravity" to them because apparently every other vacuum "is too bad"?
Only an idiot blueeyed monkey would do something like that.

I get it, but what I'm asking is if it could simply be a matter of our technology being insufficient. C'mon, gimme that much.

Right, but just because I didn't know the exact answer doesn't mean that there wasn't a correct answer before the observation.

Yeah, that's what I think is bullshit lol.

You mean entangled particles?

Yeah, go ahead. See, this makes me think of that silly philosophical question about whether or not a tree makes a sound when it falls if there's no one there to hear it–it's safe to assume that it still causes the physical reaction that we interpret as sound, but if there's no one there to hear it, well… then there's no one there to hear it. To me, the Copenhagen interpretation is like saying that, not only does the tree not make a sound, the tree doesn't fall.

No, it proves that at a pressure of 1atm gravity is not strong enough to stop a net influx of air into a vacuum.

Away from the earth, the pressure gets lower decreasing to 0 where we have a vacuum.

Gravity doesn't act any differently to other objects. the force is proportional to the product of the masses between two objects. A feather is much lighter than an elephant to the mass of the earth*mass of feather < the mass of the earth* mass of an elep[hant so it's much easier to blow a feather.

The Gr() is fascinating, definitely worth delving into a bit even just to play around with the form/idea

Here's a thought, take a divergence, considerable as an omnidirectional vector, can the form of the points r(n) on the surface of the "sphere" formed by a given divergence be viewed as being located on a given plane through some twisting of the parameters of observation? Can a Gr() be taken from its planar form and viewed as a divergent/convergent field through an inverse twisting of parameters of observation?

Can a line be curved purely by perspective or interpretation? How? Are there any known mathematics for such a thing?

Does the soul have mass?

Its a dumb question but my rudimentary understanding that during the Big Bang various gases like hydrogen collected due to microgravity and eventually compressed until they exploded.

So 1. Why did they explode instead of collapsing into a black hole
2 where did the first matter molecules come from in the first place?

Feel free to get as technical as you want. I can google stuff.

The plane flies because air molecules bump into the wing at high speed pushing it upwards. Put your hand outside a moving car and angle it and you will feel the same force.

For a plane to fly the force exerted this way must be greater or equal to the weight of the airplane. Again, use your hand as a demonstration.

For the last part, the curvature of the earth is very small relative to a plane so for anyone flying a plane these effects are negligible on any related timescale. But planes follow geodeisics, not straight lines because that is the shortest distance on a sphere.

The theory says nothing about the instrument measuring the particle. The idea of a measurement is rather poorly known still as far as I understand. I may just be lacking knowledge in this area since Qm is not my subject either.

We already have gravitational wave detectors. See LIGO

Actually gyroscopes do exactly what you claim they do. They will allow you to detect the curvature of the earth by the exact method you just outlined.

In this vacuum video does the lighter object fall faster or slower than in non vacuum?

The theory says nothing about our techonology. It is an intrinsic part of the theory.

The absence of hidden variables is what makes QM different from normal statistics and probability. There, we know what we don't know, so to speak.

No, pilot wave theory. Give it a google.

Is there anything else you are confused about?

This is pretty flat to me. And it is higher than most planes are flying…

It may be an intrinsic part of the theory, but it is, after all, just a theory.

Elaborate

Btw, you're a saint for not launching personal attacks at the flat earth imbeciles.

You still haven't answered my question! I do not care about your lies and bullshit, all i asked was which lodge are you a member of?

I'll take a stab at it since this is an interesting idea -

keep in mind, any response you get will be a guess, no one truly knows, we only know what has been observed

I choose to view the universe as a battery circuit, "no magnetic monopoles" as a key point, the universe, time, space, all representations of a flow of "current" though not in the typical expression, Black Holes and Quasars are the junctions of the battery, and at those junctions energy mass and information are able to be transferred from "universe" to "universe" though it's probably much stranger than that - it is possible the lifespan of a universe begins with an influx of energy (also remember that time is irrelevant for higher dimensional objects, so time reversal and null are necessary to be considered) but t=0 by our 3d*t universe is a point of 0Entropy but inf Energy, or perhaps infEntropy in an infinitely ordered energetic state, pure energy or "energentropy" as I have coined the phrase, such chaos and disorder that total and pure order is formed, there is no imbalance, only once a junction pierces a universe bubble (planck scale is not a limitation notably, it represents a crossover from infinitely small to infinitely large) think of the universe neighborhood like frog eggs in gelatinous goo, each egg is self contained and considered to be independent of the whole but if energy is transferred through the whole of the goo it will also be absorbed by the eggs in a way incomprehensible to the eggs without knowledge of the gelatinous goo they are contained in, energentropy can spear into a "void" universe or near void, that part is difficult, and create an expansion still contained in the egg structure and likewise contained in the gelatinous goo which exerts force/pressure etc (abstract terms here) on the egg, really odd

tl;dr by my view the "big bang" was a transfer of energentropious flux E into our universe's egg, no mass was present initially so it was able to stably and infinitely (with respect to dt) be in equilibrium, however, perhaps an outside force acted again or perhaps the state of energentropy is such that mass can randomly form in the chaos, and as soon as any mass is present the flow of current commences and formation occurs as well as our perceived expansion and traversal of time

I'm not sure if anyone will understand any of this so I'm going to stop typing

I would say you need to define your embedding space carefully. In the absence of an embedding space, all lines are straight but once you can define a normal tensor all of a sudden you can measure curvature and whatnot.

How much maths have you done?

Not of anyone who browses Holla Forums

I think you are pretty much correct. Google Hubble Flow if you havent already and matter condensing out of that.

1) The collapsing fluid has huge potential energy due to nuclear reactions. Essentially the strong nuclear force is way way way stronger than gravity so unless you have a massive amount of matter, the resulting explosion will produce way more kinetic energy than the collapsing matter had before the explosion, blowing it all apart.

2) quark interactions in the early big bang. I have no idea TBH

Go have a read of the Chandrasekhar limit. and maybe primordial black holes too.

Hahahaaaaaa, nice one

I have seen the curvature with my own eyes from a plane. I am sure you can get a better picture on google.

Here's a question: all the other heavenly bodies look circular right? Why might this be?

Yes it is just a theory and it may be all wrong, but supposing it is right it makes no mention of any physical apparatus so we must assume the predictions are valid no matter how good our equipment is.

With the girl, the hidden variable was her height. It exists independetly of wheither we observe her or not. QM would look at the same question and declare that the girl has no fixed height until she is measured.

I've never seen sunlight so dense ^^

what is soul?

Mein gott! There was a lot to be found about masonry and rotary club online. Many people are saying they are like bread & butter.

But sir, you still haven't answered my question(or perhaps you already have, in a very masonesqe way i might add), are you a mason or in any way connected with masonry?

Also, look up intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature. you will like it :) I can discuss that with you if you what cause it with BTFO flat earthers

What does your theory predict about the universe that we don't already know?

"intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature" Good one sir! I have taken the liberty of reading up on the rotary club in the meantime. Some real interesting stuff here:

• Religion being disregarded, this protects the Jews and secures them easy penetration into all walks of life. This is clarified through the necessity that each club must have at least one or two Jewish members.
- Among each 421 members of the Rotary Clubs, there are 159 members who belong to Freemasonry, and this means that they are more loyal to Freemasonry than to the club.
- In some cases, membership of the Rotary was limited to the Masons, as it was the case in Edinburgh, Britain, in 1921 C.E.
- In Nance loges in France, in 1881 C.E., the following was reported, "If the Masons constitute an association along with others, they must not let it be led by others. The effective officials must be Masons and the association must act according to their principles."

hmm.

Don't get me wrong, flat earther here… I was making fun of the "science guy" who is definately not a mason

I once calculated that if a star made of lava hit a star made of ice the silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen would fuse and you would have a supernova and then a white dwarf after a few hundred years. Did I calculate that right?

there are no id's here. Anyway, let's wait for mr. mason here and let's see what he says.

Information is not lost in Black Holes, it is transferred via junctions, for one, and the information "produced" by Quasars/Hawking Radiation is that of the opposite end of the junction, the energy information that enters a given universe travels via path of least resistance to areas of low energy and creates differential expansion rates, universes of different ages and different time orientation (by this idea the time is not a 0-inf exclusively but also can be viewed as inf-0, the opposite universe is an "underlayer" in a way, it is the antimatter antitime equivalent of our E DCS universe where forces act opposite to their behavior here but time is inversed so they act exactly the same from their perspective, this is also a suggestion why "antigravity" hasn't been observed as a counterpart to gravity, because in those areas time is moving in a way such that it rights the flow

Also, a whole lot more complex is the idea that each planck n space within the universe(s) is a microcosm macrocosm bothinfinitely small and large (relative terms obviously) as in planck scale to universal scale at the point of rescaling as in Gr(), that gives a very interesting identity to energy transfer because it would require moving through each and every mcmc universe along the way and bridging the gelatinous goo equivalent gap between each, the interspace (as in spinors etc) variance thereof

also that the universe is constantly in a loop expanding and contracting like lungs breathe in breathe out but each successive repetition is variable, deterministic to some n + some factor of variance that is the ability of the universe to deviate, each successive universe is that ((n+x)+x)+x)+x)… that means that the universe has some range of determinism, it can either gain or lose in whatever the measure is of its ability to vary in each repetition as x can likely be negative but entropy says we should be increasing but that has been shown to not always be the case

there are a lot of implications, it is difficult to elaborate on them in pure text but hopefully these are at least foundation for discussion

Maybe. Do you expect us to know without providing your data? Hmm.

Well, in any case you might be able to use it in game-logic but im afraid gravity doesn't actually exist in reality.

Not quite sure what you mean here. If I understand you correctly, I think this ultimately gets to the crux of what I'm suggesting: MAYBE the equipment is reinforcing the predictions because it's not sophisticated enough. They say that every experiment has proven the theory that there is no "deep reality"–and I'll take their word for it–but perhaps we're just not asking the right questions, and therefore, not developing the proper tools for observation.

Yeah, I'm rooting for the Neorealists on this one.

I honestly feel sorry for people whose identities revolve around their silly politics to this extent. Go outside, user.

lol

I would address your points mr mason, but you don't even address mine and the sentences don't even hang together so it seems a tad superfluous. If only people knew how to read and listen huh? That wouldnt make your job so simple though.

dis old meme :)

what do you think is the heat energy in a sun made of magma compared to the strong nuclear force? Probably many many orders of magnitude less. no supernova there.

How do we observe these different universes and prove your theory?

The fact that I frequent a site where people try to refute gravity because Jooz is really starting to make me re-evaluate my life.

Hey even if there are "black holes", how do you know anything about them if the only way you can "observe" these objects which are unimaginably far away is by looking at the emitted light. And from what I know "black hole" is black because there is no light coming from it XD
P.S. … by Quasars/Hawking Radiation is… Please tell me how can Steven Hawking(the Jesus of your religion) be alive so long with ALS? Simple answer it is not the same person… :D

the earth is flat too. obviously because proto-jews live in antartica.

It's not about the heat energy at the beginning, nigger, it's about the mass. Just a sun made of ice would pretty much immediately start to fuse, even if it started near absolute zero. But that would turn into a main sequence star. Throw in lava (which is made of oxygen and silicon) and you've more than doubled the mass without adding much fusible material. It's not big enough to start burning the silicon, but it's definitely big enough for the oxygen and hydrogen to start to fuse at the same time. Let that cook for a bit and you've got a nova. The only question is whether it's powerful enough to blow off most of the silicon or whether it will become a brown dwarf

I'm not sure that we have the means presently

lol my religion nice one

so yes, black holes are incredibly distant and that means that the information we receive is questionable and certainly any and all theories are just our best guesses. That said, we know a good deal about how light works and moves from our observations here on Earth, we can extrapolate that knowledge over great distances observing distortions and discrepancies between what is expected and what is observed

and yes, while theoretically a black hole shouldn't emit anything, observation shows that they actually do emit energy, and quite a lot of it.

"Gravity doesn't act any differently to other objects. the force is proportional to the product of the masses between two objects."

But surely that would mean that gravity acts differently depending on object. I know you masons like to play wordgames but i think you should clean up your sentences.

"A feather is much lighter than an elephant to the mass of the earth*mass of feather < the mass of the earth* mass of an elephant so it's much easier to blow a feather."

How convenient! But sir, do you not think that the idea that objects fall because they are denser than the surrounding medium and float because they are less dense is a much simpler theory? Beauty & simplicity are supposed to be the guiding principles of science after all.

and btw, don't answer that, im not actually interested you see. I'm still waiting on an answer to my first question.

Actually quantum field theory came about because QM predicts stuff wrong, but the probabilistic nature of the theory still holds.

if you had a stable sun made out of ice, doubling its mass wouldn't change much.

Yes religion, because you get your results from people you don't know personally and you can't obtain the information by yourself. I really don't want to offend you by saying that…

If there was a sun made of ice it would immediately become a sun made out of plasma.

What do you mean by "probabilistic nature"? Quantum indeterminacy?

What are you talking about? The masons have a large internet-group and they all share information.

well I mean by that logic fuck books, fuck knowledge,you are using a language created by people you don't know personally, a keyboard created by people you don't know personally

also most of the theories are my own, so fuck you lol, I don't trust anyone or anything in science, I just look at what is reported as a result and think about why, I don't just listen and regurgitate what someone says or does

you can't actually be this stupid lol, not to be offensive but holy shit, also I don't give a shit about Hawking or anyone, the only guy I really have a tremendous amount of respect for is Nikola Tesla

He doesn't actually believe in it himself, but it's what he peddles to people who can't think independently.

I suppose you get your knowledge from divine inspiration, huh?

...

When will i get my answer btw. I must say this isn't looking good at all. You masons always avoid even denying that you are masons. You just avoid the problematique.

Please answer this question after you have answered my first question: Is this just masonic policy or is it grounded in some deeper theory about karma. It seems you fellows have some theory about that and i would like to know what it is.

Hey, even Plato had some measure of respect towards that. Giddy up. Answer the quesions.

No I get my knowledge from seeing stuff with my own eyes :)

Watch out, or he's gonna tell you boats go over the curve(even though you can just take out some binoculars or a zoom-camera and see it again).

Therein lies your problem lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

If everyone were as intellectually lazy as you, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

You realize people have travelled AROUND the world, right? They travel in one direction and eventually end up back in the same location. Of course, that's barely even scratching the surface of why you're a moron (or mentally ill), but it's a little piece of common sense. And before you spew some nonsense, do a little research on the earth's magnetic poles.

Come on now. Just because *I* a superior mind mentions Plato doesn't mean you can just jerk out something related and pretend you have something to say. You won't rise high in the brotherhood if you are this simple!

Talking about the heavenly bodies being circular… Does this look like circular solid body to you?

The square one is better i think.

Oh. AROUND the world. Oh goodness gracious. It's not like a flat-earther haven't heard that one before! Oh no! Youve completely stumped me.

Now magnetic poles, according to "science" are made by liquid iron core in the center of the big ball, right? Therefore one should go underground to observe what is actually happening there and still we can't dig deeper than 12km. Please explain to us what exactly the magnetic poles have to do with anithing here :D

He'll explain to you that magnets can only exist on a ball model of earth lol

… Where is my answer mr. mason.

I forgot to say that compass can only work on flat surface :P
But I think he got Grand Master Elusive Degree of Black and White Tiles XD XD XD XD

Your comment about Plato was rather vague. I provided a specific concept which illuminated my point. But go ahead and tell my what it was that Plato said about divine inspiration and what you think it proves, and I'll tell you why you're an idiot.

Oh, well, I guess that picture totally proves your point.

Do you honestly believe we haven't gone further because we reached the… bottom?

livescience.com/32732-how-does-a-compass-work.html

By the number of masons online i wonder if they make it some kind of rite that if you go through enough shilling you are promoted to a higher degree. Would be kind of sad if they weren't even paid. On youtube you have the same faces shilling flat-earth videos for YEARS and theyre all flauting some mason symbolism like a sun or a G or a pyramid or another mason symbol in the profile picture lol

Why won't you answer my question? But come now, "livescience"? You are on 8ch now, do you think you can peddle a reddit link? Most people here have grown to be sceptical of anything mainstream.

What question? I'm not OP

Attacking the source is not even close to being in the vicinity of an argument.

It reminds me of the saying, "don't be so open minded your brain falls out".

Im not going to repeat my question! Are you blind or suffering some severe case of retardation? I think iv'e asked the same question 5 or 6 times now.

Well, then I guess you won't receive the answer that you seem to want so desperately lol.

In the meantime, try reading some things that have been written by people who have more than a superficial knowledge of how stuff works.
Sad

Do you like oscillating universe theory, big expanse theory, big crunch theory, or heat death of the universe theory?

Until the end of all deceptions, there will always be bunch of gatekeepers in any level of knowledge, so trust only your intuition and senses

I think OP bailed because of all the tinfoilers.

But I'm still in the mood to discuss physics. What do you think? Or do you have no clue?

Fuck off Matt
Nobody cares how much time you wasted in academics. You're speaking to neets

I have read his bs and it is precisely because iv'e investigated these things myself and not just taken a "physicist" or schoolbook's word for it, i know it is bullshit.

You see that's the difference between a serious flat earther vs a round earther. You can't even come up with reasons for you belief or you spout some easily debunkable nonsense everyone knows after 2 weeks into flat earth. The difference is i /know/ the earth is flat. You /believe/ not only everything you are told by supposed authorities, but also in the spinning balls with air in vacuumtheory. You /believe/ in science and the media when it is a hierarchical structure with so many opportunities for control it's not even funny(cultural, economical, secret brotherhoods, JEWS, positions of power, etc etc).

The one thing people need to realise is that people like the masonfuck in this thread and the "heerd" sciences are completely compromised. Everything depends on you getting your paper published and you cannot go against long established beliefs. The editor won't accept your paper, you will probably lose your job over having gone "crazy" nor will you receive funding in the first place. And that's just mentioning some control levers, there are many many more. They utilize language & rhetoric to it's full extent, they have no morals and will sink to whatever level they can in order to "win".

Dare to look into the rabbithole at least. You must learn to think thoroughly.

Particles can definitely "know about" paths which they aren't observed to travel down. For instance, you can perform the double slit experiment with electrons and they produce an interference pattern, indicating that they interacted with both slits. If you use photons you can even have the two paths separated by an arbitrary distance. The theory says that should work with electrons too, but it isn't as simple to build an electron mirror or beam splitter.

There are even ways to make a photon's path always depend on the state of an object which it only has a 50% chance of interacting with:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester

Honestly, until now, I thought you were just a Holla Forumstard who spends too much time filling your head with conspiracy theories, but I'm starting to think you actually suffer from a mental illness. And before you give me the obligatory "not an argument" response, just know that I'm well aware that it's not an argument.

Yes, it's important to have your theories reviewed and empirically tested. It's fine to go against established beliefs if the logic is sound and the evidence correlates, but the reason why flat-earthers are a laughing stock is simply because they're wrong–not because of the Jews or masons or reptilians… they're just wrong.

This is classic redpill buffoonery.

Albert is a known plagiarist. There's really no arguing it, there's books that detail every single mistake he has ever done in his life. You have to be a special kind of retard to believe in a mathematician.

Opinions and beliefs are irrelevant. If your hypotheses are correct, you will be able to use them to impose your will upon the universe. If they're wrong, the universe will smack you down and laugh at you.
Personally I'm going to side with the people who have built ICBMs and space stations.

I wonder if you are actually dumb enough to believe this. There's copious examples of people losing their job just for having politically incorrect opinions in the hard sciences and maybe google if you don't believe me because im not going to spend half an hour linking it to you and frankly it feels like im talking to a child. If people are actually this thick then i defer for now because it's late and id rather use my time more productively. Have fun in Disneyland.

It should be required by law to do atleast 1 week of research on the vacuum station before talking about it.

And i STILL have no answer to my question. I wonder why.

But generally speaking, they do the same thing every time. You may not be able to predict the spin of an electron or exactly what it's going to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have a specific location and a reason for behaving the way it does. Does that make sense?

If you're referring to things like IQ rates, then yes, those things are controversial and I'm sure people have lost their jobs without reasonable justification. If you're referring to things like vaccines being linked to autism, quackpot theories like vitamin C injections curing cancer, or gravity being a Jewish invention, then those people shouldn't only lose their jobs, they should be gassed.

But you're being very vague, and I think it's because you don't want to be confronted with refutations and rebuttals that you can't counter.

Stephen Hawking… the longest living person with ALS, also happens to be the mastermind of the human knowledge about everything surrounding us, what a coincidence, don't you think ;)

i tell you what though, the odds of everything he says being coordiated by kikes is zero percent
he is just the world's smartest and hardest working cripple ever

Yeah. I also found it interesting how the longest living person with ALS weren't even listed on the official ALS website but suddenly got on there after a flat earther made a video about it.

yeah, total (((cohenincidence))).

I like oscillating universe.
Currently, evidence argues against such but I also think that our insignificant stance on the universe and our ability to read data of something billions upon billions of years old would be like trying to say a body is dying because one hour there were less liver cells being born. What if the next hour there's a sharp increase in those cells?

Someone post negro science man's mason shirt.

What are you even implying??

OH I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW WHEN IN SCHOOL THEY TAUGHT YOU ABOUT READING COMPREHENSION? I'M SURE IF YOU STRAIN YOUR MIND REALLY HARD YOULL BE ABLE TO SEE IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH MASONRY AND BLACK SCIENCE MAN.

How long have you trolled like this for?

Are you a mason?

Doesn't answer my question

Do you like doing weird things or just being weird? Do you think you are happy with your life overall? Are you happy with your personal life? What do you do regarding your specialty in physics?

An electron does not have a precise location. Deal with it.

Yeah, that must be it

Are you referring to Hawking's opinion on flat-earthers? If so, Hawking was expressing why it's good to ask questions so that we can gain a deeper understanding of things, not so we can prove that the earth is flat.

Hmm, I would have thought a thread full of flat-earthers would have been more receptive.

The fuck are you on about nigger. go suck some more jewcock.

If I was a native English speaker I would easily prove you the heliocentric model is bullshit. So all I can say is if you can't leave behind your mindset and look at the world from neutral perspective, then you are left with non-provable facts and very fishy events like solar eclipses, water tides, etc.
Only a moment of your life without your ego messing things up will let you see the truth!

Wtf, Holla Forums is unusually conspiritarded today. Either that, or the goons are getting a bit more creative with their tactics.

Shut up you ball-earthling fuck

It is not, just people are waking up and you are still under hypnosis

Here's just a shill i saw now on a flat earth vid. He's on multiple flat earth videos and is flaunting freemason symbolism(the eye). I think iv'e seen this guy for a year or so. Nice hobby. Nice (((cohencidence))). There's tons of these people.

Funny, I haven't seen a single compelling argument or piece of evidence yet. Just a bunch of nebulous generalizations about Jews and masons, and images of horizons that appear flat.

Nope. Sorry, im a retard. That guy is a flat earther :P He just used their symbolism and puts a flat earth in the eye, got a bit too carried away there.

ANYWAY. Look for mason symbolism and planets etc in the profile and recurring names. They are literally littered all over flat earth videos and have been at it for years. If you want to tell me that is just their hobby and it's just a huge coincidence that they use mason symbolism then you can take a walk.

I hope you learn from this, user. Seriously, I want you to reflect on what just happened here.
>Nice hobby. Nice (((cohencidence))).

First of all I've never said there are no shills everywhere…. for more info on this topic look at my post here

You want evidence??? You will get one after answering this simple question: How is it possible for lake Baikal in Russia to fully freeze and when measured with cheap laser to be flat from coast to coast?

Here's two example of "space picture shills". These are one type of shill. The most common after freemason symbolism shills(even though it was the masons that invented the false cosmology so i suppose you could say there are mason symbols too).

It's literally littered all over the place. You just have to be able to add two and two together.

Anyway, im out. Good luck.

Is that the big question that you've been begging for an answer to? I don't know, but i'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable answer that doesn't include incontrovertible proof that the earth is flat.

This is quality posting.

Is it too late to apologize for these flatearther retards? I'm so sorry you had your thread flooded with their garbage tier dumpsterfire theories.

Unfortunately OP bailed a while ago

I am asking you now in this very moment and not begging…
And like any popular science defender you are saying there's a perfectly reasonable answer for the questions that can't be answered by your model :)
And I am trying as hard as I can to not offend any globehead

I'm saying I'm not a scientist, and therefore, I'm not qualified to shed light on this topic. And I'm not going to go digging for a source that provides an explanation, only for you to dismiss it as "Jewish" or "Reddit"

I won't say it is jewish or reddit, if your explanation is coming from your own experience or can be witnessed from normal person without special equipment or permission

Do particles exist, user?

Good question and still I will try to answer it from neutral point of view: Particles probably exist, but maybe not in the exact way we know. It seems natural for objects to be made of something fundamental and in any case they are not the product of the "greatest explosion in the beginning of times"
P.S. At least you are reading what is written here and reasonable :)

Well, literally no one thinks they know the exact way.

Ok… enlighten me.

Oy, OP. Can you explain to me the different dimensions i.e. 4th and up?

Why haven't you invented an infinite energy machine using magnets… like, hang a giant magnet in front of a ship or a car to pull it forwards

In Lake Baikal, the water temperature varies significantly depending on location, depth and time of the year. During the winter and spring, the surface freezes and for 4–5 months, from early January to May–June (latest in the north), the entire lake surface is covered in ice.[23] On average, the ice reaches a thickness of 0.5 to 1.4 m (1.6–4.6 ft),[24] but in some places with hummocks it can be more than 2 m (6.6 ft).[23] During this period the temperature slowly increases with depth in the lake, being coldest near the ice-covered surface at around freezing, and reaching about 3.5–3.8 °C (38.3–38.8 °F) at a depth of 200–250 m (660–820 ft).[25] After the surface ice breaks up, the surface water is slowly warmed up by the sun, and in June the upper circa 300 m (980 ft) becomes homothermic (same temperature throughout) because of water mixing.[25] The sun continues to heat up the surface layer and at the peak in August can reach up to about 16 °C (61 °F) in the main sections[25] and 20 °C (68 °F) in shallow bays in the southern half of the lake.[26] During this time the pattern is inverted compared to the winter and spring, as the water temperature falls with increasing depth. As the autumn begins, the surface temperature falls again and a second homothermic period of the upper circa 300 m (980 ft) occurs in November. In the deepest parts of the lake, from about 300 m (980 ft), the temperature is very stable at 3.1–3.4 °C (37.6–38.1 °F) with only minor annual variations.[25] At some locations, hydrothermal vents with water that can be about 50 °C (122 °F) have been found. These are mostly in deep water, but locally have also been found in relatively shallow water. They have very little effect on the lake's temperature because of its huge volume.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal

...

Why are we still here if there was beginning
symmetry between matter and antimatter?

The jew panics and spams porn, then manages to delete it. Amazing.

1) Gravity is supposed to be strongest closest to the ground(im pretending the masonic construct here is real)
2) You build an airchamber with a bigger vacuumchamber on top and connect the two chambers
3) The air disappears into the vacuum chamber
4) Jewing commences over how this doesn't apply to the earth because there's so little air "in contact" with the vacuum or something so a ball whizzing through vacuum won't have it's atmosphere removed.

At some point you have to admit that you have been fooled.

If the big bang created the universe from nothing and the universe is accelerating, is the universe accelerating into nothing?

The Sun's speed is supposed to be 200 km a second.

The Earth's speed is supposed to be 30 km a second.

But since the sun doesn't leave us, this means earth also have to have a speed of 200 km a second in the same direction the sun is flying(this speed is never mentioned though). The ball earth is also supposed to be spinning at at 440 meter per second. In a "near perfect vacuum". Yet, not only are the air staying in place but for some reason it is following along with the ground while the supposed "plane-t" is spinning. Anyone who is old enough to form thoughts know that air is not stuck to anything, in fact you can easily move it with your hand, so why would it follow along with the ground if nothing is holding it in place?

They lie to humanity and claim that the spinning somehow makes the air follow along, but this is not how gases operate at all, in fact the air should stay still and we should experience winds equal to the "spin" of the earth constantly.

What, exactly, am I supposed to be looking for?

hey guise da earf is flat and stuff

The atomicists won against those who believed in a non-discrete world.

But if the world is particles, is the 'background 'ether' or setting then discrete or continuous?

If it's discrete it must be a pattern/matrix of holes. But if it's a pattern, they must have preferred directions, which is not the case, as far as I know.

And if it's continuous, what's the point of seeing the world as a discrete / atomic thing?

Have you aroused the Goddess today?

I reached LEVEL FIVE AROUSAL today!

Few physicists can do that. I graduated with the special elite class that could, but we were a rare breed indeed, and many of us probably sacrificed ourselves to the Goddess for the sake of our love.
Not me, though. I matured late, and when I matured, I matured well.

…so: Have you aroused the Goddess today.
As a physicist you should know Her well.

In twenty minutes, the six babies will detonate.
I am insane, and I'm about to find out just how insane I am.

You still won't answer my question!
Have you aroused the Goddess today!
Your very life depends on your answer, heathen!

Haha!
The babies didn't explode at all!
How do you explain THAT, Mr. Physicist?
Who is the TRUE master of the physical world?
Bow before the Goddess!

1) There's a window of speed an aeroplane can hold in order to fly level. In this window the aeroplane will not descend or be dragged down by "gravity".
2) Once an airliner or jet reaches this speed it can keep flying level until it reaches another part of "the ball".
3) No turning of the nose is performed, ask any airline pilot
4) Somehow the aeroplane isnt gaining in altitude or flying out into space.

I remember these threads. I hope you like little girls because that's all Holla Forums is now. It was shit before but now it's another abandoned chan.

Earth /is/ FLAT.

bumplocked.

Can't even find it anymore now.

I understand that it's a concept and, in part, a theory

But we understand it as a basic feature of anything with mass. Are you claiming that gravity isn't such and is another, or that it is intangible?

There is no gravity the worldplane is constantly accelerating upwards that's how things stay on the ground on flat earth cuck

But there is no up in space

Space is an illusion made up by (((scientists))) to keep you in the dark and keep you compliant.

I have a very important question. If you sat someone in a chair, and span them at extreme speeds, would the torque vector crush them? If not, what other way could you spin someone to death?

Then what's outside of our atmosphere?

There is no atmosphere. The world is enclosed within the firmament.

Then what is the solar system?

What is the solar system other than what it is? The stars and the planets which move around our world…

Didn't you just say that there isn't anything beyond our atmosphere?

The heavens are housed within the confines of the firmament

So, you believe that the entirety of the universe is either rotating around a disc that is 8000 miles in diameter, or that they are confined to the "firmament" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean)

It is very simply the aetherial boundary which binds our world together and consecrates it apart from all the others.

Do you have any proof at all that we're trapped in the firmament?

Yeah. Rockets turn when they ascend because the fake scientists know they would crash into the firmament otherwise.

That's a pretty good troll you have going

Hey, physicist!
You need to start eating garlic every day.
It actually keeps the Goddess away.
I'm eating garlic right now.
It burns, so you can hear Her voice as well, as a bonus.
I'm sweating.
5-7 cloves a day, Mr. Physicist.
Maybe she'll eat you last.

What is for you the best try in coupling général relativity and quantum physics ?
Already know string theory, scale relativity ( so elegant but what a joke) and loop quantum gravity.
Which one is the most serious to your eyes ? (excluding the Calabi yau problem for string theory)
And do you know other theories or hypothesis for a theory of everything ?

why is physics so inferior to metaphysics?

Cause without physics and applied physics you wouldn't be able to comment on this thread?

How can one weaponize quantum mechanics?

I bet nobody has ever tried that before, other than using something to make other things cancerous.

I mean, if you put fire on something, it may burn, if you put your hotpocket inside the microwave it will heat the water molecules.

Ain't anything that can alter the state of matter, or anything that could cause a large transformation in, I don't know, gravity, that could be monetized for, lets say the industry, or some fancy public relations stunt the next unabomber could do?

I agree 100% on this one, also you can't propel yourself in vacuum ;)

Based on your knowledge of physics is there a life after death?