Message from @「阿波根うみこ」

Discord ID: 575065175627923456


2019-05-06 20:36:08 UTC  

The calculations are.

2019-05-06 20:36:16 UTC  

so some of it is theory ?

2019-05-06 20:36:33 UTC  

But the predictions of the calculations are put very much into practice.

2019-05-06 20:36:39 UTC  

Theory backed up with proof and experimentation that show it to be true

2019-05-06 20:36:47 UTC  

but not facts?

2019-05-06 20:36:52 UTC  

jsut theory ?

2019-05-06 20:37:05 UTC  

Theory that is shown to be true, ergo it is fact

2019-05-06 20:37:10 UTC  

Science doesn't deal with facts per se

2019-05-06 20:37:14 UTC  

so none of it is theory ?

2019-05-06 20:37:18 UTC  

gotta run later guys

2019-05-06 20:37:18 UTC  

Or do you want to keep sliding them goalposts

2019-05-06 20:37:28 UTC  

Oh, convenient that

2019-05-06 20:37:34 UTC  

Science constructs predictions based on calculations, observations and experiments

2019-05-06 20:43:09 UTC  

To give you a concrete example, according to radioactive decay theory, this Sr-90 probe has a β- decay. This means that after a certain amount of time, a neutron will decay into a proton by emitting an Electron, conserving electrical share, and an election anti-neutrino, conserving the lepton number. *In theory* if you put Sr-90 into a magnetic field, the electrons emitted should follow the magnetic lines into the desired direction. Depending on the strength of the magnetic field you can also determine the energy of the electrons.

2019-05-06 20:44:07 UTC  

Now the point of all this is because this is *literally* how we detect beta decay using certain Geiger counters. So clearly, the theory works both on paper and in experiments

2019-05-06 21:01:58 UTC  

@Bannebie you're able to defend gravity?

2019-05-06 21:03:06 UTC  

Yes, it would seem so

2019-05-06 21:03:15 UTC  

Pfft, let's see

2019-05-06 21:03:30 UTC  

Gravity is unproven and self-contradicting

2019-05-06 21:03:41 UTC  

You can't defend something rooted in nonsense

2019-05-06 21:03:42 UTC  

How so

2019-05-06 21:03:49 UTC  

Elaborate, please

2019-05-06 21:04:00 UTC  

Can you give me one concrete proof of gravity?

2019-05-06 21:04:06 UTC  

Of mass attracting mass

2019-05-06 21:04:48 UTC  

No, because there is none

2019-05-06 21:04:52 UTC  

Gravity is unproven

2019-05-06 21:05:37 UTC  

Gravity is the accepted scientific norm, therefore it is up to you to provide the burden of proof that it is not correct

2019-05-06 21:07:06 UTC  

You claim that mass attracts mass

2019-05-06 21:07:12 UTC  

It's your burden to prove that

2019-05-06 21:07:25 UTC  

Appeal to authority fallacy doesn't work here

2019-05-06 21:07:43 UTC  

Cavendish experiment set the framework for mass-mass attraction, ever since then countless more experiments have been done. And as I said before, any particle that has a nonzero Mass-momentum-stress tensor is affected by gravity. You can show the existence of gravitational wells using the bending of light, for example.

2019-05-06 21:08:32 UTC  

Besides, I'll need to find the video but there was an experiment done on the so called vomit comet, the aircraft that is used to simulate very low gravity environments easily where they take a transparent box with some dirt in it up into the aircraft, then when the gravity weakens it floats upwards and goes from a loose collection of dirt to distinct clumps

2019-05-06 21:08:51 UTC  

Mass-momentum-stress tensor? @Bannebie

2019-05-06 21:08:58 UTC  

Yes.

2019-05-06 21:09:00 UTC  

That's not it's name.

2019-05-06 21:09:06 UTC  

It's the stress-energy tensor

2019-05-06 21:09:13 UTC  

Also referred to as the stress-energy-momentum tensor.

2019-05-06 21:09:32 UTC  

And no, they're not effected by gravity.

2019-05-06 21:10:28 UTC  

@Bannebie do you even know the field equations

2019-05-06 21:13:05 UTC  

A nonzero value of the stress-energy tensor results in a certain curvature of spacetime shown by the metric tensor.