Comment on Maybe ghosts are real, but since they're incorporeal they're unaffected by gravity and get left behind in the void of space

• octoperson@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They would fall through the center of the earth, continue back up through the mantel, pop up momentarily to spook someone on the opposite hemisphere, then repeat the whole trip in reverse with a period of about 40 minutes.

  source

  • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Hm… actually are they incorporeal AND massless, or just incorporeal?

    If just incorporeal, you’re right of course that initially after death they’d be falling back and forth, but over time through uneven gravity/curvature and through heat loss (stretching of unequal acceleration applied across the ghost essence, potential energy conversion, yadda), they should generally settle to the center after some time, unless there’s a maximum natural pressure of ghosts at whatever temperatures they have, so they may spread out somewhere within the crust if there are enough of them.

    If they’re incorporeal AND massless, then I totally F’d up and they’d fire off at light speed as soon as they shed their mortal coil.

    source
• DrQuint@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  But light isn’t a particle it’s a wave. I mean, just look at it… Oh… Forget it. It’s a particle.

  source

  • MrPoopbutt@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s neither a particle nor a wave, it’s a photon.

    A zebra is neither a horse nor a tiger, though it shares properties with both.

    source

    • Masimatutu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It was a joke – it behaves as a wave until you observe it; then it collapses into a particle.

      source
• Masimatutu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Well that’s just a theory, albeit good, and there’s a good chunk of modern science that refuses to marry it, so let’s not be so sure about it, shall we?

  source

  • Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I really hate that people just accept these advanced theories as objective truth. It’s just the best theory we have right now, that doesn’t mean that’s how it actually works. It’s good enough that we can almost always just use the theory and get good results, but then people get all pissy when you point out that it’s still just a theory and is not without its flaws.

    source
• Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If the spacetime is distorted, and the light no longer appears to travel in a straight line, does that not mean that spacetime itself and the light that travels in are no longer straight?

  How can a straight thing be distorted but still be straight?

  source

  • Masimatutu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is straight in reference to the distorted spacetime.

    source

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Is this 2D-3D comparison supposed to be like a human-understandable analogy for a 3D-4D relationship?

      I saw an explanation once about how time is the 4th dimension. They drew a line on the edge of a book. From the perspective of a single page (2D) it just looks like a dot, but because we can see many instances of that 2D representation it appears to us as a line. An individual page represents how we experience time.

      Is your ball example supposed to be kind of like that because I just can’t imagine how spacetime could be a 2D thing in a 3D universe.

      source

      • Masimatutu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Well, kind of. The time dimension is a bit tricky, though – in Minkowsky space, a common way to think about spacetime, it is hyperbolic in relation to the other dimensions. In a nutshell, this means that distance is not the square root of the sum of the squares of the distances in specific dimensions, but rather of the difference. This makes it especially tricky to visualise. (I do recommend you check out this series by minutephysics)

        My analogy, therefore, doesn’t translate directly to spacetime, but it does provide an explanation for why straight things can act curved.

        source
  • ssboomman@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think a better way of explaining it is with the idea of a shortest path, and not nessesarily a straight line. With two points in space the shortest path between them will be a straight line. If there’s a large amount of gravity tugging on space time the shortest path will be curved.

    source
  • RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s called General Relativity and Reference Frames.

    Start watching PBS Spacetime if you actually want to get into it.

    You’re also entirely missing the point of the comment that was a joke entirely re-explaining the “reason” for ghosts ending up at the center of the Earth, which is implied by the original comment.

    source
• Masimatutu@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I had to search for a bit but I finally found this !science_memes@mander.xyz post: mander.xyz/post/3197041

  source