Sir Roger Penrose on collaborating with Wolfgang Rindler on Spinors and Space Time

[@UTDScience]

Experience the excitement firsthand at UTD Physics' colloquium, where leading scientists converge to share cutting-edge research in a manner accessible to all. Ignite your passion for physics and join us in shaping the future of science: utd.link/colloquium

[@ArwenAreYouOK]

This here is a dadgum outstanding lecture. There ain't nobody who can put their foot where Sir Roger Penrose's foot's put. Greatest to ever...

[@six1free]

he's feebly realizing what ceneezer's been saying for years

[@ExhumedPutrifact]

What an amazing lecture to access on KZbin!

[@Andospar]

Loved the presentation! Thank you for sharing.

[@rudypieplenbosch6752]

Wow, he even created his own diagrams for Spinors, his mind is all about geometry, amazing 👏. It's amazing where he shows the spinor analogy between gravity and electromagnetism, while this symmetry is not clear when looking at it from a tensor perspective.

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@ShredEngineerPhD]

This is absolutely fantastic!

[@rubenramosbalsa7743]

Amazing video!! A gift to the audience

[@joqqy8497]

This was great. Thank you.

[@brendawilliams8062]

The twisters are very nice. Thankyou for sharing.

[@SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? It takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@SpotterVideo I don’t use calculas, triangles, algebraic, modular, ect. Ect. So: you don’t want to discuss this with me

[@michaelwalsh9920]

I have met a few spinners too. Awesome, tremendous lecture! Many thanks for sharing.

[@brendawilliams8062]

😂

[@makanani1014]

Would love to have just one conversation with Mr. Penrose.

[@qwerty6574]

Rindler was even cooler than Penrose.

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@makanani1014]

@@timelsen2236 yes form and function. The sinusoid or euler's identity serves as the foundation and is infinitely transformed to greater complexity. Each element is like a homeomorph to a sphere/particle, whereas a boson or field is homeomorphic to a circle (2d), or a helix (3d) hence a kleinbottle (4d) has no volume. This is analogous to a photon and is why a photon has no internal structure. As a simple sinusoid, the frequency compounds into greater complexity as seen in gibbs phenomenon. This is what tesla eluded to in regards to energy, frequency, and vibration. These are all expressions of a simple harmonic oscillator.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

We would require the capability to detect folds in space time for the negative of a particle to be observable. 57:02 this part seems important The similarity of a spinnor and an atomic orbital is striking. Couldn't a hypersphere be positive on the exterior and negative on the interior; vice versa?

[@SeekHunt1334]

Not too long ago I searched whether gravity can be modelled as transverse waves or not. I hadn't considered many of the implications here at all, including the potential bridge to tensor networks.

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@onemediuminmotion]

The reason that (e.g. "microscopic" and "quantum" ) size scales are only physically defined as purely relative to each other, i.e. in terms of their role in emergent diversity of "structure" native to (as only possible at) these various self-relative (such as our "macroscopic") size scales is the fact that the most elementary geometry of the SUM's* self-relative motion is that of the horn toroidal fluid vortex (HTV), which is more or less spherical and circular, i.e. as a hypersphere. If we wish to construct (approximations of) other geometric structures, such as a cube or other straight-edge polyhedron, we can do so by arranging multiple (more than one) of these simple particulate HTVs into a lattice** whose outer surfaces become closer and closer approximations to perfectly straight lines and flat planes the greater the number of HTV's of a given standard baseline "size" that we incorporate into the lattice. This 'purely self-relative' function of size scale in structure is perfectly described by the Fourier Series. And this carries right down to the 'quantum mechanical' scales where the self-relative motion (accelerating/acceleration-) flow trajectories of an otherwise scale uniform medium begin to take on (i.e. non-uniform) 'structure' as such. It is at this 'wave/particle-transition' scale also that we first 'see' elementary "particulate" HTVs (a.k.a. "mass particles") "in motion" -- i.e. with-as-through the flow-geodesics of the surrounding 'empty space' SUM -- "with respect to each other" *'scale-uniform medium' -- a.k.a. "spacetime" ** NOTE - thereby "also" affecting the "network" structural principle as being "distributed - in - space - over - time"* * * * * * (thereby "also" phenomenologically manifesting "extension in space [over time]")* * * * * * * * NOTE: I also refer to this emergent [physical/phenomenological, if you will] "proliferation of structural diversity" in terms of, and by means of, the ("otherwise") SUM's self-relative motion as ""the bifurcational proliferation of complementarities". Please also check out (read carefully, tolerantly -- it's a work in progress -- and thoughtfully) my "Anthropos Cartographer" meta-philosophy (a.k.a. 'Experiential Meta-Mechanics'; a.k.a. 'The Quantum Philosophy'; a.k.a. 'Networkology' ) in the comments at "What is a Worldview" (kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4eknoxnfdt4rqs) Unlike man's previous 'philosophies', this one explicitly recognizes, defines, and declares itself to be a human intelligence self-engineering technology. Thanks

[@silberlinie]

Can we please use Wolfram's Mathematica and its excellent graphics capabilities to produce a nice clean colored visualization of this structure? 1:26:25

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@pizzapoundcake4043]

Skip the intro: 4:31.

[@ticthak]

In 15 or 20 seconds of exposition , Dr. Penrose clarified cyclic cosmology at the end there on a point I've had struggles with for some years now.

[@brendawilliams8062]

At least his videos don’t erase your comments even if you fell off the back of a turnip truck. 😊

[@sonarbangla8711]

Quantum mechanics is represented by the complex plane/sphere and real line is representing classical world. Reimann's stereographic projection of the plane on the sphere represents Hilbert's infinite dimensional quantum universe of Maldacena.

[@rhcpmorley]

Astonishing maths. But if Space (in this context) is the dimension of [relative] Position (hence xyz axis) and Time (in this context) is the dimension of Change (hence 'rate'); why isn't Spacetime simply the dimension of Changing [relative] Position aka Motion? Or, being reference frame specific, actually the dimension of Constant Motion, [Spacetime-time the dimension of Constant acceleration, Spacetime-time-time the dimension of increasing acceleration etc (over to the mathematicians again)]. I don't get it. Either way, Spacetime is abstract...and abstract's can't 'cause' anything. They can only model and predict...?

[@JacobPlat]

Yes.

[@omargaber3122]

its amazing

[@ElwoodAndersonNV]

We seem to have at least three theories of the formation of the universe, Penrose's CCC theory, the expansion theory of Guth, et al, the space-time theory of Richard Lewis that proceeds from the general theory of relativity, and string theory explored by many physicists. And, we're still wrestling with how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with the general theory of relativity. The only theory that claims to not require extra dimensions and a cosmological constant, and tries to explain what dark matter and dark energy are is the Richard Lewis theory. Yet, we don't see any questioning of the claims of Richard Lewis by the proponents of the other theories, or by physicists not strongly identified with any of these theories. We have had videos of Guth and Penrose discussing their theories, but none of Lewis and the other theorists. It's time the video makers give us such videos.

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@M-dv1yj]

I looked up Richard Lewis’s theories it’s not the only model that describes dark matter, energy. There is another and it adds particle/ anti particle asymmetry and classical gravity from quantum gravity, along with what exactly gravity is. Time, entropy and the role of complexity. All in a clean set of integrated field equations.

[@iskrabesamrtna]

Naming something "twistor" in a field that already includes spinning objects (spinors, torsion fields) and angular momentum creates unnecessary confusion. People may mistakenly think it's a physical phenomenon rather than a mathematical reformulation. Twistor theory doesn’t add observable predictions about spacetime (so far). It’s a framework for simplifying equations. If someone calls a torsion field a "twistor," they’re mixing up a mathematical tool with an entirely different physical hypothesis.

[@RockBrentwood]

He never said anything about "torsion"; you simply misheard him. He said "distorsion" at 51:46, not "torsion". You can generalize it to Riemann-Cartan geometry and bring in torsion (I've done so). In that case, there will be more to the decomposition than the three sets of components depicted in that diagram. There are 20 independent components in the figure, 10 with the Weyl tensor (5 for left-helicity, 5 for right-helicity). The others include 9 with the traceless Ricci tensor and 1 with the curvature scalar. In you bring in torsion, there will be 16 more. I just did a once-over of his first volume. The lecture is mostly working off of that, including the figures and visualizations. A lot of it I already came up with, independently, with more or less the same notations, except substantially cleaner and more generalized - like including Riemann-Cartan geometries (including generalizing Newman-Penrose to Riemann-Cartan geometries - with torsion). I probably picked up Penrose'isms through my reading of Carmeli's books. And I expanded Carmeli's treatment, too, to include non-Abelian gauge fields, as well. Carmeli only did SU(2) fields and electromagnetism. Also, while Penrose pushes his "abstract index" notation, I simply use the Mathematicians' linear functionals and make the vector and co-vector arguments the indices, instead. It generalizes, subsumes and unifies the mathematicians', physicists' and Penrose's notations seamlessly all together as one. I demo'ed that in a recent reply on Physics Stack Exchange, in answering a question on whether (and how) torsion can be generalized to gauge fields.

[@silberlinie]

And also about this extremely interesting animal 1:09:26

[@Spiegelradtransformation]

is math powerful enough to describe a piece of ART.

[@shoopinc]

No

[@michaelwalsh9920]

Yes, if you really think about it.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Thankyou

[@SabirHassan]

great job

[@thomasolson7447]

Cone is wrong. It doesn't preserve the grid. The grid is important because that is the hyperbolic part.

[@keithkucera3163]

I have a solution for twister theory and also the LC circuit that space time naturally creates

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I don’t understand why Sir Penrose begs the question that no one understands quantum when his math is seriously the answers.

[@brendawilliams8062]

What I mean is calculus kind of goes about sphere packing in a particular frame of reference

[@omargaber3122]

Welcome 🤗

[@SpotterVideo]

The following proves Roger Penrose is correct. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

prove photons exist.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@JamesHawkeKZbin Do you know anything about the "Photoelectric Effect", which Einstein received the Nobel Prize during 1905 for his work in this area?

[@InconspicuousOwl]

🤣😂 "prove lights exist." IDK though, I believe Rindler is the most proper path forward in physics.

[@Goat-e3g]

4:58,

[@six1free]

@20:00 ... he's trying to describe a moebus strip as though he's never heard of one - and what he's describing can get more complex being the parental category... but while we all know about moebus strips he's taking the long way by poorly describing them.

[@wulphstein]

We come back to the problem that spinors are not real particles nor are they what spacetime is made of. The sooner we figure out what spacetime is made of, the sooner we can isolate it. When we isolate a quantum of spacetime, we can store gravitational potential energy in it. Sooner we do that, the sooner we can generate warp fields.

[@edmadison9041]

They say the Webb telescope will be able to see something 13 billion light years away. Say that you focus that telescope on what we will call Planet Z and that is 13 billion light years away. Say that Planet Z does not move or change much but pretty much just sits there. Where would you point your telescope to see Planet Z 12 billion years ago?

[@josiahhamilton1430]

If Planet Z is some theoretical planet 13 billion light years away and is not moving relative to us, then to view it as it was 12 billion years ago we would have to point the telescope in the same direction, but a billion years in the future, and a billion years in the future it would still be 13 billion light years away.

[@jasjas8232]

Everything is a concentration of time. Individual points of Fibonacci Sequences of time create the platforms of everything.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Wouldn’t 3.14572992 be usefull as a measurement with locating spinors ?

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@channelwarhorse3367 I guessed 🤴Godelle incompleteness

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@channelwarhorse3367 I didn’t mean to belittle what you know. I could be envious. I had really rather congratulate your achievements. Sometimes my humor is dry. So thx for sharing

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@channelwarhorse3367 Mr. Warhorse , I did well to finally get to Maxwell. He alluded my perception to the end. It was not my genius. It belongs to his credit. I am satisfied. I wish you much luck and future successes.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@channelwarhorse3367 you are in smarts that I don’t understand. I am sorry. Interesting that I sense a real concern and if that’s the case, then I would still wish you much fortune. Thx. For sharing

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@channelwarhorse3367 you see to me , I wanted proof of ten. Everything always seemed to be ten. And I wondered why ? My question was never bigger than that.

[@trentostgaard]

maybe we can conceptualize everything is essentially flowing towards a single ultra massive black hole that is/was the beginning/end of the universe, the mass of the thing is what is causing the flat curvature we see, we are somewhat far away from it relatively speaking, but the curvature closer to it is too intense and essentially acts like it is on both sides of our universe. black holes we see in nature are all leaflets or stems from this mega black hole. and quantum effects such as randomness are caused by smaller and currently undetectable rifts where these other black holes are connecting to the main one

[@soniahazy4880]

🌈🦋🧩🙏💎🌟🤩🛸🪷🎼

[@jonathanjollimore7156]

Why you don't need fine tuning to explain universes uniformity when you have a perfect start point that =0 EDIT that little cone that's your higss field your spacetime

[@wulphstein]

The truth is, I can tell you how to build a warp field. A warp field is a field that stores gravitational potential energy that induces a gravitational acceleration field along a vector. The trick is to use quantum entangled photons to store that gravitational potential energy. It is easy to make entangled photon pairs by shining a laser beam into a crystal and splitting the beam into two entangled beams. The way you store gravitational potential energy in the entangled photons is to treat the entangled photons like a capacitor. In a capacitor, if you change the voltage between the two plates, you create an electric field between the plates, which is identical to an electrical voltage. In the case of entangled photons, if you frequency shift one or both entangled photons, the necessary result will be a potential energy (gravitational) between the entangled photons. Using fiber optics, mirrors, lenses, you can direct the two entangled beams in what ever way you want. You can create the equivalent of an Alcubierre drive without using more than a few hundred watts of laser power. I only brought this up because several of these interviews have asked about UFO technology, but the physics community needs some ideas to talk about.

[@ramonlantigua2030]

What are you on about sounds like nonsense.

[@timelsen2236]

Weyl curvature is tidal like negative Gaussian curvature in the R and T manifold subspace in the vacuum about a mass, while Ricci curvature is overall volume contraction when the mass density is within the volume considered. This is why the vacuum is Ricci flat. Net dilation or contraction of space requires the region to contain some mass density distribution. Since mass is always a positive density distribution it must be the case that Ricci or mean curvature is always positive. Please correct me on any errors for the big picture most generally. I love Rodger Penose and his geometric leanings. Many students are dissuaded from deeper geometric thought, as streamlined yet more superficial algebra is more highly recognized due to fast answers.

[@wdobni]

i wouldn't bet the farm on this one.....penrose has the greatest difficulty articulating what a spinor is.....and a spinor is supposed to represent spacetime.....i give penrose a lot of credit for trying, for trying and fantasizing these 4 dimensional movements and trying to corral them like a herd of cats into a well ordered regiment of lines and flags.....but if that is really how the universe is then i think we're all fkd

[@timelsen2236]

His diagrams show his deeper geometric thought, similar to Einstien's. There are several double covers that are similar to spinors. The easiest is R=sine (theta) in polar coordinates, only appearing in quadrants 1 and 2. when sine becomes negative it again covers quadrants 1 and 2. Z squared double covers the W plane, yet spinors are the square foot of space, quoting Sir Michael Atiyah.

[@wulphstein]

Does anyone think that the physics community has lost the script on how to do physics?

[@wulphstein]

@@Whysicist Physics uses mathematics. But physics is not math. Physics is about the "physical" laws of nature. Physics is supposed to be about experiments. We should be trying to figure out what spacetime is made of; not hyperfocusing on calculus of variations or M-theory math.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

Absolutely. They are laughing at all the silly numpty's who think any of this baloney is true.

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

@@wulphstein Nobody knows what space or time are. "space-time" is a fairy story.

[@urosgrandovec3409]

@@JamesHawkeKZbin what do you mean?

[@gyro5d]

It's called, "Aether"!

[@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344]

I really get the impression that the biggest problem of theoretical physics is to find a notation that everyone can agree upon. So they keep talking over each others heads. Roger's diagrams (that remind me stuff you might find in one of the old Radio Shops) aren't going to be used by too many people I guess, and there seems to be also very little unity about how to exactly write down things like spinors, Weyl spinors, and his famous twistors. Try to follow any longer and more elaborate KZbin lecture that doesn't try to dumb things down, and you might easily drown in the symbolism salad. I must say, he really makes great attempts to find something that is really pictorial and can be memorized: So I kinda like those directed up and down flags with a variety of attachments. But his index diagrams with wires, which are trying to replace tensor notation, seems total overkill.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Sir Penrose is the genius of our era. The only place no man has put a step on is quasi crystals. He is close and so close. And it’s not in guru land

[@RockBrentwood]

I have no difficulty understanding any of it. I saw the diagram notation long ago and am familiar with it. And there is unity in writing spinors: the van der Waerden notation has been used since the 1930's and is more or less standard. Even Scharf, in his "Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach" book pulled out van der Waerden, in his 1995 edition; as do most physicists who probe the subject at a deep enough level. The Dirac notation (the other standard in common use) can be defined in terms of the van der Waerden, so it's just a convenient encapsulation of it, nothing more. Also, it's perfectly fine equating frame indices (a,b,...) with double left/right van der Waerden spinor indices (AA',BB',...), like 48:59, and that's common. The explicit expression is g_{ab} = σ^{AA'}_a σ^{BB'}_b ε_{AA'} ε_{BB'}, and the convention is to treat the "soldiering form" σ^{AA'}_a as a glorified Kronecker delta δ^{AA'}_a and just write g_{ab} = ε_{AA'} ε_{BB'}. You can do that, as long as you abide by the pre-condition which is that the σ's must have zero covariant derivative. If clarity is required, just stick the σ's back in.

[@ThomWalbranA1]

First 4:30 minutes are boring, so are the next 3 mnutes if you care about your mind forward to 7:30 to get anything useful and again maybe not.

[@TodayIfYouHearHisVoiceHebrews-]

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Matthew 6:33

[@kevinkammueller7553]

I doubt Jesus knows Twistor theory.

[@pistitoth1363]

OK! Köszi! Jó tudni hogy nem vagy egyedül.

[@Zweizweinull]

immer noch bei ihm und noch mehr vorgestellt bevor ich hier zu drecks schreib

[@JamesHawkeYouTube]

Wondering if there is any scientific evidence for gravity yet? Can somebody prove how gravity forms spheres of matter in the sky. Then prove how Earth is one of them. Do this without referring to a model, mathematics, or asserting that lights through a telescope are proof. Describing existence with elaborate numbers and convoluted concepts is not to be confused with a true insight into existence.

[@jaw0449]

What does a "true insight into existence" look like?

[@RuthvenMurgatroyd]

Sorry, but no. We aren't God, we won't get true insight into the things-in-themselves. Science is meant to approximate from observations and mathematical extrapolations from said observation. You'd have to be an idiot if you thought we'd have have it all figured out.

[@RockBrentwood]

Yeah. If you climb onto your roof and step off into the middle of the air, away from the roof, then you'll probably fall to the ground. That's the experiment. The outcome is the prediction. There's your scientific evidence for gravity.

[@jmp01a24]

Not a word from Penrose....

[@Zweizweinull]

or a little boy on just prank you stuff before you sleeps well again on part of this things