Nothing is “impossible” in science. It’s difficult to experimentally prove negatives. Until we can experimentally prove something, we cannot pass any statements like these.
For manipulating the gravitational field, we don’t even have a theory of quantum gravity. There is no evidence suggesting that you cannot manipulate it. However, there is no evidence suggesting that you can either.
However, an absence of evidence for something does not mean that it cannot exist. It just means that we must not assume that it does exist.
You clearly don’t understand field theory and what a field actually is. You cannot manipulate a field to suddenly not exist or behave differently in a specific location, otherwise its not a field and would not be mathematically congruent with our existing observations. We have very much proved that you cannot manipulate fields.
Unless you feel like proposing a new model of physics that matches all of our existing observations and allows for your wacky nonsense, please stay quiet on the subject.
You cannot manipulate a field to suddenly not exist or behave differently in a specific location, otherwise its not a field and would not be mathematically congruent with our existing observations.
Correct. I never said you could do that. By “manipulating a field”, I meant causing excitations in the field. A moving a magnet causes excitations in the EM field (positive and negative) for example.
That being said, I still don’t say that you cannot manipulate the characteristics of a field (I think this is what your definition of “field manipulation” was). As I said in my previous comment, proving negatives is incredibly difficult. Einstein and his peers for instance did not believe that chain reactions involving nuclear fission were possible. This is because the neutron had not been discovered yet. Based on the data that they had at the time, would it be correct of them to say “fission chain reactions are impossible”, or would it be correct of them to say “we see no evidence for fission chain reactions being possible”.
please stay quiet on the subject
I don’t know if this is a figure of speech that I don’t understand or if it is you being rude. If it is really you telling me to be quiet, that’s not nice. From your response, I assume that you are a student of science. Scientific communication must be in good faith where personal ego is removed completely. If you meant it as a figure of speech, then sorry for being preachy.
This is like asking if we could manipulate the gravitational field to make ourselves weightless on earth. Both are fundamentally impossible
Nothing is “impossible” in science. It’s difficult to experimentally prove negatives. Until we can experimentally prove something, we cannot pass any statements like these.
For manipulating the gravitational field, we don’t even have a theory of quantum gravity. There is no evidence suggesting that you cannot manipulate it. However, there is no evidence suggesting that you can either.
However, an absence of evidence for something does not mean that it cannot exist. It just means that we must not assume that it does exist.
You clearly don’t understand field theory and what a field actually is. You cannot manipulate a field to suddenly not exist or behave differently in a specific location, otherwise its not a field and would not be mathematically congruent with our existing observations. We have very much proved that you cannot manipulate fields.
Unless you feel like proposing a new model of physics that matches all of our existing observations and allows for your wacky nonsense, please stay quiet on the subject.
Correct. I never said you could do that. By “manipulating a field”, I meant causing excitations in the field. A moving a magnet causes excitations in the EM field (positive and negative) for example.
That being said, I still don’t say that you cannot manipulate the characteristics of a field (I think this is what your definition of “field manipulation” was). As I said in my previous comment, proving negatives is incredibly difficult. Einstein and his peers for instance did not believe that chain reactions involving nuclear fission were possible. This is because the neutron had not been discovered yet. Based on the data that they had at the time, would it be correct of them to say “fission chain reactions are impossible”, or would it be correct of them to say “we see no evidence for fission chain reactions being possible”.
I don’t know if this is a figure of speech that I don’t understand or if it is you being rude. If it is really you telling me to be quiet, that’s not nice. From your response, I assume that you are a student of science. Scientific communication must be in good faith where personal ego is removed completely. If you meant it as a figure of speech, then sorry for being preachy.