raspberry
Discord ID: 495152303410511872
918 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/10
| Next
density is probably a consequence of things falling on FE
i mean relative density model
that maybe true
too small to measure but probably yes
it's a definition people made up
i think things fall on FE as a fact first. then, bc of that, relative density emerges
yes a tiny bit
it doesn't mean we fall 1/6 as fast tho
but fall slower some yes
yes
@Nico2020 sounds like michelson and morley
they found that earth was still in the aether
by testing light speed
then einstein came up with a theory that said the earth was still moving
but that the aether didn't exist
it's possible to cover an object with moonlight without actually insulating it guys
so if moonlight makes a thermometer colder you can measure that
like you guys are saying putting a piece of paper 10 or 20 feet above a thermometer will change its temperature because of insulation @mineyful
yes so the measurement doesn't have to be done in different buildings
no, that's llike saying everything cold has negative energy @Happygrandad
yes, light just has to draw energy from what it hits
yes
some people think using a magnifying glass would amplify the cooling effect
@carlito the argument is that it probably isn't i think
it'd be different than sunlight
@Drewski4343 yes but that's different than just moonlight and nothing else cooling things down
@mineyful i've read what you've said but they don't seem to explain the thing
@Drewski4343 temperatures can be different in different buildings or in different settings. but you could just cover/uncover a stream of moonlight onto ao thermometer
yees, photons can absorb energy. they are part of the electromagnetic quantum wave
@Drewski4343 covering/uncovering moonlight. but not insulating the ground. like, a piece of dark paper 20 feet above a thermometer will not insulate it
and yeah @Steve Angell
@Drewski4343 yes
the best way to know is to test
giving off cold doesn't have meaning
that's not what it means to say something is cold though
@DARK downwards acceleration is
probably bc buoyancy is a consequence of things falling on fe
it's not *exactly* i guess, it's the rate at which things fall that's used
buoyancy doesn't rely on the theory of gravity no
bai
it's the rate at which things fall
globe earthers give it the letter "g" because they think it's caused by gravity tho
ye
gravity isn't in the equation bc gravity is nearly unobservable, if it exists at all
and tests still end up accurate without it
well fe has an alternate description
on a globe, all matter attracts all other: the acceleration is g = -GM/r^2. on fe, the acceleration is more universal, something like: g = -9.8 m/s^2
normally the sun and moon sets behind mountains and buildings
which would happen either way idk
the way the sun sets halfway over the ocean is weird... but personally i've never seen that
i believe it happens. but it's just not that it happens every day
you'd have to be surrounded by water on both sides o:
or maybe one side is over buildings/mountains but either way
i believe it happens sometimes
it might be refraction, idk exactly what it is yet
i imagine with mountains it just goes sideways until it moves past the mountains
IDK agree to disagree :p
don't wanna accidentally use your real ip ^
they do it often enough, they'll slip up and give away who they are
tru it was calm
@Fran it requires downwards acceleration
or any acceleration, as your centrifuge shows
and you can define a force for any movement
but it doesn't require the theory of gravity
but, just saying, you don't need gravity to have the fact that things fall
hm? that sounds like 2nd law of thermodynamics, instead of buoyancy
well they are related
ok now i think i see what you're saying. the pressure gradient of earth's atmosphere, i think that'd be a result of buoyancy bork
i guess things fall, then that causes buoyancy and the atmosphere's pressure gradient, and all wheter or not there's a globe and gravity
@Drewski4343 hey sry I stepped out
@raspberry buoyancy doesn't need entropy/thermodynamics. But it's underlying cause is thermodynamics. For example, it assumes fluids have pressure to hold themselves up...entropy describes where this pressure comes from
@demonwarrior2266 how do you prove gravity?
I've never seen it proven in person
Cavendish isn't doable by individuals, only by govt labs
Steve it's what believers of Einstein believe
@Fran relative to an aether? Things can move faster than c in general relativity
Except they can't relative to the local space time or "aether"
But two galaxies can move apart faster than light
Nu just space time expansion
Not faster than local speed of light
No Fran
I can when I get home
But it's googlable
There are galaxies that can never be observed supposedly because they move away faster than light
So their light never reaches us
It is limit for elections and all causality
Except only relative to a local 4d "aether"
Light speed is formally the limit of causality speed yeah
And only relevant if there is a cause
I.e. Why entanglement doesn't count as breaking light speed, ye that sry
Steve I'm not claiming it's true, this is just what they claim
Npnp makes sense
astrophysics has some theoretical parts
but
i don't think gravity is very proven'
it's easy to believe other people sure but it doesn't seem possible to demonstrate it for yourself
if google uses a neural network to pick precise results
918 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/10
| Next