Notices by 🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org), page 133

@adidasJack

Here i found the second video. Here they explain how fields are the fundemental constituent of space-time. Has a great visualization. I set the link up to take you to the part in the video where they cover this but if you have time watch the whole thing.

https://youtu.be/g20JZ2HNZaw?t=310

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@the_daily_comfy

I always just thought of it as a wave that interacts at a point. If someone really needs a physical real world analogy the pilot wave model is compelling in that regard.

@adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij

@sda yea but point is the list is different for every journal. They usually mention in the publication of the paper what journal group it was posted through

@adidasJack

Yes i know it doesnt answer the question. I shared it for a few reasons...

1) to explain that why is a question that goes infinitely deep and never ends. IT generally isnt useful when we start talking about fundemental forces

and

2) to explain to you that asking "what is the space time field made up of" is not the useful question. It is the fundemental thing (fields) and what you really should ask is what is everything else (air, water, etc) made up of (and ultimately you will arrive at the answer that it is fluctuations in the space-time fields)

I'll share a second video when i find it (im looking) that answers about spacetime specifically

But the important take away here is that you have 4 fundemental forces, and a few fundemental fields. These are what make up everything else, not the other way around.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@sda Oh thank gosh, I was worried for a second :)

@sda Depends on the journal in question. I am on the lists for JACM peer review myself but that doesnt apply here. One reason i asked for the link to thestudy itself is so i could find the peer-review status of it if there is one.

@adidasJack

I linked the first of the videos here: https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8

Check it out then ill send you a second which actually address the space-time part

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@adidasJack

Watch the video i shared. space is made up of fields, the field is the fundamental elementary thing.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@sda Anyone who wishes to, it is part of the public record usually. On most journals any scientist interested can subscribe to the peer review process and read it as it takes place. This is usually archived somewhere.

@adidasJack

So ets start here where keynman explains what a magnetic field is "made" of... after you watch this i have a second link which will add more details about what space time itself:

https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@sda You miss the point. I never claimed peer-reivew makes it valid. Peer review is a process which explains the criticisims of a group of educated people against any paper, which then eithe rpasses or fails.

What matters is **not** simply if a paper passes for fails peer review, that is nonsense. What matters is if when reading the peer review and what those criticisms are you can determine if the conclusion of the peer review is warranted or not.

@adidasJack

Space is a field.

The issue is that you are trying to explain a fundemental object (a field) in terms of non-elementary objects.

Its a failing of human nature because those macroscopic things seem more real to us than the fundamental things. In reality it is the other way around.

All of space-time is a field and everthing we think of as objects are various types of perturbations in that field (waves).

So space-time is a field, it is the fundemental thing (not made up of things) and waves travel through it, which are little more than ripples in that field.

Are you a visual learner maybe? I can find some good educational videoa that can explain this to you graphically maybe it will help, there is also a talk with feynmann that is great... I will get them for you, please do watch them it will help answer your question

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@adidasJack

Thank you. I'd be happy to try to explain but first what do you mean by "informational carrying medium", I assume that you mean "a medium which can carry information", what would make you think air can not carry information? Sound of course has information and it traves through air.

As for the "frequencies you are radiating" air is not really the medium that carries the waves in this case (though it may move through air) but rather space-time. This can be seen by the fact that we can transmit radio signals through a vacuum, so air is not a required component to transmission.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

@adidasJack

Alright, I will give you the benefit of the doubt then

@a @CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

Sure thing, what is the refractive index of the atmosphere? Are you at sea level? Is the point you can see in the distance also at the same altitude as you?

The basic equation is d = R(δ + ψ) where ψ is the dip of the horizon, δ is the refractive index of the horizon and R is the radius of the earth.

now that you know how to incorperate the refractive index let me see you do the math again this time using the refractive index and horizon dip to calculate distance. Ask if you need help and dont know how.

@adidasJack

Thats probably because those users blocked you and im about to block you as well if you keep tagging me.

If you arent trying to learn, dont tag me.

@a @CCoinTradingIdeas @TheRealSmij @Froghat

Did we seriously just get our first "vaccines cause autism" post on QOTO... sad day. Lets hope this doesnt become a trend and we keep having real science here.

@sda peer review has plenty of flaws. the value is not in if something is peer reviewed or not, it is in the content of what that peer review is. Why was it rejected or accepted.

@sda Again can you link me to the actual study that you posted in your original link as it appears on pubmed.

1) you have yet to show that your original link was ever posted on pubmed at all

2) if it was it does not garuntee it was peer reviewed (most journals all, but not all articles all, it is labeled as such)

3) even if it was peer reviewed before you draw any conclusions you should be reading the actual article including its conclusions. Do you really think a presentation that looks like it was done in paint is sufficient for this

@adidasJack

Oh yes, I can see, I agree yea you clearly are very poor in math.

So notice how your equations dont include the refractive index of light anywhere? That should be your first clue that you were wrong.

In order to calculate horizon distance youd have to account for the refractive index of the air the light travels through.

Did you measure the refractive index that day? We should run through the actual math.

Im worried where you learned the equations you wrote down. Whoever taught you doesnt appear to know the first thing about how to calculate this stuff.

Im so glad you are willing to admit you dont understand this stuff and recognize it has major errors in it at least, thats a step in the right direction.

@CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij