WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

715

Gravitards SEETHING...

Gravitards SEETHING...

(post is archived)

[–] 9 pts

"Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists." -- Nikola Tesla

[–] 3 pts

But Professor Erik Verlinde, an expert in string theory from the University of Amsterdam

he's just butthurt over string theory

[–] 0 pt

String theory was invented when a science bitch ate some yarn and had to get the string pulled out the other end. Either that or those stoner hippies need to lay off the guitar.

[–] 0 pt

String theory actually exists, unlike 'gravity'.

[–] 1 pt

Theories don't exist in reality, theories are abstract concepts which attempt to encapsulate reality. A map of the territory so to speak.

A theory has ontological implications, in that the originators of the theory reflect their intentions, and perspective via their theories. For example critical theory is just hatorade made by losers.

[–] 1 pt

So, theories are fake and gay too? I'll allow it.

[–] 0 pt

All theories "exist", even ones that are false.

[–] 1 pt

The theory of gravity exists, but 'gravity' is fake and gay, until proven otherwise.

[–] 3 pts (edited )

I like this guy already. He already is getting Huffington Post mad. He made some sort of contribution to an organization that aims to teach kids about the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory. Huffington Post takes the position that science is science and there is no quality spectrum within it, so wear your fucking mask. These real scientists are making Huffington Post come to terms with the fact that their version of pro-science dogma is unscientific in culture.

From what I understand he is saying there is an interaction between matter and empty space that gives rise to gravity, and that the more empty space there is the more gravity result a particle produces. If he was simply saying that empty space has its own mass then that would not be sufficient because points outside the galaxy would pull equal to the extra sources of gravity inside a galaxy. You may say, but only matter beneath a considered sphere matters. That is true for genuinely spherical or circular arrangement. If you imagine a field of uniform particles gravity would not point in any specific way even though you can draw spheres of consideration all over the place.

This explanation would be more useful than dark matter anyway because dark matter doesn't solve the mass distribution problem generally. Galaxies rotate closer to how we think they should in the center and middle, and too fast around the outside. Essentially there is a angular velocity curve for a given distance from the center of the galaxy that doesn't match what we would expect from the expected or observed matter distribution of a galaxy. One would almost expect that dark matter would have a similar distribution, itself being impacted kinetically by gravity. But for some reason it maintains a less concentrated distribution to explain why the outer portion of the galaxy experiences more gravity and the middle doesn't.

Suggesting that particles produce more field when around less matter would explain the middle bands producing more gravity than the center with respect to expectation thus providing more mass for outer bands to be attracted to.

This still seems very general relativity like. He is saying there is increased entropy and information in these situations, which is feeding into an Einstein explanation for the curvature of space time. Verlinde is saying that a particle produces more entropy where there is more space.

[–] 1 pt

he is already getting the Huffington Post mad

that makes it all worth it.

[–] 0 pt

Ruff' the Huff? Good enough!

[–] 0 pt

I watched and it seems that it's more related to entropy. It seems that he's approaching it from a high level, seeing how it correlates with macro characteristics, then eventually finding how it emerges from micro things.

I like just that he's suspending belief in gravity as a fundamental force and approaching it from what we observe and know, treating it as something emergent, the same way other high-level characteristics don't involve any special fundamental physics. This is the heart of science, coming up with fresh ideas and working hard to make them testable, and testing them. Good science tries to shake the foundations, rather than merely confirm them (which experiment can never fully do, as it's only capable of proving some theory false, not true).

[–] 2 pts

Gravity is the electrostatic byproducts of gazillions of atoms drawn together in large masses so their nucleus is slightly displaced. The resulting charge of each atom is off center all toward the center of the planet leaving a net charge opposite at the radius. Any body in such a field also has its atoms slightly off center creating a summed opposite charge so it is drawn to the other body.

When you do the computations of such summed offset atoms you get exactly the strength of gravity.

[–] 0 pt

(sees username)

Ooooooh, I get it!

[–] 0 pt

The electrostatic force is pretty far-reaching.

[–] 2 pts

Lost me at universe. I have some doubts

[–] 1 pt

The universe...another theory.

[–] 1 pt

Be it Freud or Einstein, these kike scientists serve ONE goal, to take white achievements, and either stall them out for as long as possible or gaslight/poison the well when it comes to a theory. Remember, Einstein was also a nigger lover and promoted racial equality for his time. What the fuck does promoting nigger worship have to do with the field of engineering? Fucking nothing, but that doesnt stop the kikes from pushing globo homo shit wherever they can

[–] 0 pt

I do know Einstein was a plagiarist kike, and probably a homo as well

[–] 0 pt

Who knows, i wouldnt be surprised if he was fucking a dude in the back or something. The guy got going by laying claim to the most bullshit theories imaginable (one of them being that two observers cannot share the same perspective of the same item from two different sight fields), and then used his plausible theories to push the horseshit ones.

Lol at string theory. Let's start with finding any evidence at all for supersymmetry before we start down a rabbit hole entirely dependent on its existence.

[–] -1 pt

String theory is real, unlike outer space

Well that's just a retarded statement, backed up by...no evidence. Good job, hope you enjoyed the jab, sucker.

[–] -1 pt

Oh, you want EVIDENCE?? How about evidence for the existence of gravity? There is none.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Gravity is the thing that captures the atmosphere above you, with its clouds and insects, birds and helicopters, and airplanes, and speeding bullets, and holds them in place while the earth below spins crazily around, and at the same time, holds the oceans in place.

Gravity can distinguish between insects and giant rocks that sit untethered to the earth. (The rocks are kept in place while the insects fly freely about.)

Gravity is amazing.

[–] 2 pts

But bopper, air has mass as well, clouds weigh several tons, shouldn't the atmosphere generate its own gravitational pull? What about water? The oceans of the world are massive, shouldn't water have it's own gravitational pull?

https://nasaviz.gsfc.nasa.gov/11234

According to science bitches, less mass means less gravity, so only rocks create gravity? Only the tectonic plates? If you make it to the center of the earth you should technically float because gravity is pulling you from all sides?

[–] 2 pts

Yes, less pull the closer to the center you get. Air etc. has mass but not nearly the density of rock or water.

And , due to different densities under the surface.

[–] 1 pt

I agree. Bopper

[–] 2 pts

Crazy what we've been taught to believe, the fantastical thinking lies more with the globe folks.

[–] 1 pt

wow, youre dumb

[–] 2 pts

He's flat earth shill. They've been pushing this like-garbage all day. Probably means they've been sliding something important.

[–] 0 pt

Lol, I'm someone who researched it and couldn't debunk it, simply sharing what I discovered. That makes me a 'shill.'

I don't 'push' or 'slide' anything, I have no time for juvenile crap like that.

[–] 0 pt

I'm correct. Gravity evidently distinguishes.

[–] 0 pt

yeah? go jump off a building and tell us what happens..

[–] 0 pt

Gravity is the fictitious force we ascribe to these things, a powerful way to model and predict what we observe.

And gravity is such a gift. Just being able to set things down in a house and have them stay put would be a mess without gravity. And the way it forms gradients in fluids is essential to things like life, convection currents, things floating on water (buoyancy).

[–] 0 pt
[–] 0 pt

Oh yes, I know...high IQ.

[–] 0 pt
[–] 0 pt

'Some realist with Big Brain energy'

[–] [deleted] 0 pt (edited )

You can disagree with gravity if that's what you want to do...

It will be a short argument that ends abruptly.

[–] 1 pt

You miss the greater point, Herr Einstein. I KNOW I will fall if I step off a roof. Obviously. I'm saying that the REASON I 'fall' is up for debate. Is a force pushing me, or a force attracting me, or is there a third explanation? I see no proof for anything. Ergo, gravity is fake and gay, until proven otherwise.

I KNOW I will fall if I step off a roof.

Are you sure? Have you tried it? Sounds kinda unscientific to me. You should go experiment.

Dropping a crash-test dummy off the roof isn't good enough. Maybe gravity works on everything else but not you? The only way to find out is to step off the roof yourself.

You know... For science!

[–] 0 pt

no im scared

[–] 0 pt

Incoherent electrostatic acceleration

Load more (1 reply)