>gravity doesn't pull things

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 10

>gravity doesn't pull things

>it warps space-time and then things just "fall" into each other

>"fall"

>analogy requires another gravity

Wow nice job scientists.

>>

What stupiduty are you going on about?

>>

>>7800450

GR is a meme, you shouldn't fall for the GR troll so easily, it's not really an established theory.

>>

>>7800450

>scientists

Please don't lump me in with the physicists. No ne respects them.

Anyways, let me play devils advocate and say that they use the word 'fall' only so that retards like you can understand what is happening.

Picture a plain surface and a point moving across it. Simple, right?

Now picture a slightly curved surface that you are looking at from the top. If the surface is curved down you would see a point moving down with the surface. If the surface curves up then you'd see the point moving up as it moves.

As you see, it does not need gravity. It is just points moving across a surface. We can explain this in geometry and you don't need to introduce gravity for it to work.

>>

>>7800454

>I don't understand

>you're stupid because I don't understand

>>

>>7800450

The analogy is just a tool for teaching undergraduates. It's been shown to be inaccurate for actual orbital motion.

>>

>>7800454

The common demonstration / layman explanation of how warped spacetime can create the effects of gravity by rolling shit on a curved surface.

The mathematics of the two systems are analogous (at least, if you have a magic frictionless surface, and the mass represented by the ball is negligible), so it's a good illustration of *how* objects behave in curved spacetime, but it doesn't actually explain why curved spacetime produces that effect.

>>7800450

A slightly less terrible layman's explanation:

A warped surface demonstrates curved space.

General relativity is talking about curved space-time. The "Time" being the important element.

In flat space-time, two objects that are at rest relative to each other in space will therefore trace out parallel straight paths in space-time. (You can visualize this by simplifying it to 1-dimensional space: draw a graph with "space" on the X-axis, and "time" on the Y-axis, and draw the object's positions at each time.)

Gravity curves space-time, which causes those straight paths to curve - so those straight, parallel paths through space and time will bend towards each other. Viewed in space alone, this appears as the objects accelerating towards each other.

>>

>>7800463

Then explain objects with no motion relative to each other being drawn together.

>>

>>7800484

I don't know and I don't care. Remember these are physicists we are talking about. People who unironically believe that experimentation is good enough for a proof.

Physics Theorem: The function 1/x is continuous!

Proof: Lets perform an experiment.

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4. ENOUGH EXPERIMENTS!

See, the function is always defined. It is so obvious lol xD lel kek reddit.com! I just proved to you that 1/x is a continuous function.

QED xD lel kek lol reddit.com

>>

>>7800499

You mean like all science period?

>>

>>7800512

>all science

Except mathematics. The only field of study whose members actually give a shit about truth.

There's no wonder that people like OP are confused by whatever new bullshit comes out of physicists mouths when none of it is even set in stone anyways.

>>

>>7800522

You math tards needs some kind of 5th dimensional fedora.

>>

>>7800484

Picture it this way.

Alice and Bob are each driving a car, side-by-side down two parallel roads at exactly 60 mph due North. They are perfectly lined up, so if the roads continued on exactly straight, they'd be perfectly still relative to one another. No relative motion.

Although the roads initially appeared straight and parallel, they are actually slightly curved towards one another. As time passes, Alice and Bob remain perfectly lined up, but the distance between them is decreasing at an accelerating rate. Eventually, the roads merge entirely, and the two cars collide.

In this analogy, the north/south axis is the time dimension, and the east/west axis is a space dimension.

>>

>>7800550

That is an interesting analogy

What causes gravity?

>>

>>7800473

You stated the GR explains gravity by creating "another gravity."

Thats fucking stupid and you know it.

>>

>>7800450

The lack of mass pushes things towards mass. Mass does not attract. It is the void that keeps things together. Gravity is the illusion of this.

>>

>>7800450

Matter is really sticky, and this sticky force is infinite.

>>

The reason it's best described as falling is in the sense that are orbiting bodies are accelerating towards each other but are "moving" sideways to perpetually fall, that is, their angular displacement compensates for the loss of altitude. The orientation is a trivial matter because you can model the solar system on it's side, or the galaxy upside down.

>>

>>7800567

What do you mean by that?

The effects of gravity are predicted to extreme precision by linking, in a complicated fashion, the configuration of matter and energy throughout spacetime (the "mass-energy-momentum tensor") to the curvature (the "metric tensor") of a four-dimensional Minkowski space (The thing we live in.)

In the classical physics you're used to, an object not being affected by an outside force will follow a straight-line path through space and time, and a straight line is the shortest path between two points.

General relativity shortens this a little, to simply "An object not being affected by an outside force will follow the shortest path between two points." In curved space, that shortest-path line no longer actually looks straight - for instance, to use a rough analogy, if you're hiking from Point A to Point B and there's a gigantic mountain directly between A and B that you'd have to walk up and walk down, you can save distance by simply going around the mountain.

So, in general relativity, the curved and accelerating paths of free-falling objects are exactly the same phenomenon as that ruler-straight inertial motion - it's simply an object freely continuing along its path.

So matter tells spacetime how to curve, and then the shape of spacetime tells matter how to move. We call this "gravity."

Why do mass and energy bend spacetime in this way? Nobody knows. But if you say it does, it predicts the universe to astonishing accuracy.

>>

>>7800522

So, is induction valid?

>>

>>7800483

thats a pretty good explanation

>>

>>7800651

Of course it is.

When what you are proving has infinitely many cases, a proof by induction is like making a function that will iterate infinitely, proving all those cases.

>>

>>7800450

Gravity doesn't warp space-time, it is the result of a warp in space-time.

It's when something is moving at a curve even though it appears as though it's moving straight.

>>

>>7800609

Anon this has gone pretty far over your head.

>>

>>7800670

And that is your opinion, like that 10'000 experiments all showing the same thing are not "proof"

>Get real bro, its not like maths are real anyways

>>

Can you nerds prove any of this

>>

>>7800685

>prove

Proof is a mathematics term.

>>

>>7800650

This is interesting as hell.

What are modern day physicists researching? What is the next big thing?

>>

>>7800695

A quantum field theory of gravity

>they've been trying with strings for a while now

>>

Fucking this. It really does need it, [math]\nabla \cdot \bold{g}=-4 \pi G \rho[/math] is needed to derive gravity in general relativity. Which is nothing more than Newton's law of gravity in fancy differential form.

>>

>>7800711

>is needed to derive gravity in general relativity

lol no. That equation is just obtained as a simple weak limit of GR.

Pic Related

>>

>>7800706

Is there a way to describe string theory in layman's terms?

>>

>>7800711

>nothing more than Newton's law of gravity in fancy differential form

Colored man I beg you

>>

>>7800719

There's prolly some dozen string theories, I understand none

> In my defense, no one does

>>

>>7800727

I assume you at least know basically what a "string" is?

>>

>>7800719

Not really.

>>7800727

>In my defense, no one does

They do. String Theory is fairly well understood from a perturbative perspective. However non-perturbatively it is not well understood, and M-theory in general is not well understood.

>>7800730

An F-String is simply a fundamental object, i.e. can not be broken down at all. You can also make (p,q) strings which are bound states of F-Strings and D-Strings, where a D-String is simply a D1-brane.

>>

>>7800679

I see. So you loved my proof of 1/x being a continuous function.

>>

>>7800717

Well, have you even derived that equation? Of course it's limit is what we see in every day life.

>>

>>7800499

>What are cutoffs

>What are energy scales

>What is renormalization

>>

>>7800740

Yes, thats vanilla string theory in the 70s, then it became bigger than this, lots of theorems holding in disparate dimensions.. I lost track

A friend in the field tells me its dying tho, I tend to trust his judgement

>>

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/164598/is-there-an-accepted-axiomatic-approach-to-general-relativity

>The Poisson equation (or any other equivalent Newtonian mechanics equation)

>Simply put, we need this equation to fix the constants in Einstein's equation.

So we need gravity to derive gravity.

>>

>>7800450

Just an analogy man.

Actual GR involves objects moving along geodesic paths in curved spacetime. Real GR takes place in 4 dimensions so it's not exactly easy to visualize. This is why the balls on a rubber sheet is used to build some rough intuition.

>>

>>7800753

>A friend in the field tells me its dying tho

What's replacing it?

>>

>>7800753

Bumping to point out that nowadays the youth is all about susy

>>

If space/time is some sort of material that can be stretched, twisted, and compressed, then is it tangible and why can't we press against it?

>>

>>7800753

All of the main 5 superstring theories are fairly well understood, because they are all perturbative theories. They all use the same spacetime dimension, it is just the geometry we are not sure on because we haven't built a full string phenomenological model. Various compactifications are needed to build these models, and we have multiple different possibilities.

There is also the issue of M-theory, which is a fully non-perturbative theory, yet not very developed. That is when the dimension changes from 10 --> 11. And there is a decent explanation for that which involves viewing the 5 superstring theories as perturbative expansions around the string coupling constant and the 11th dimension being a circle with radius proportional to said constant. And therefore at the Strong Coupling limit, we can show these perturbative theories do grow an 11th dimension and align with M-theory.

M-theory can also be studied at low-energies through 11D SUGRA which is fairly well understood.

>>

>>7800778

No I just don't think you know what you are talking about.

>>

>>7800450

Geodesics nigga

>>

>>7800781

And I'm positive you also dont kid. At least I'm aware of it

>>

>>7800768

You can, you're doing it right now

>>

>>

>>7800499

you are a massive fucking retard

>>

Hey guy, fucking idiot here. Reading a brief history of time right now. What's all this business about virtual and real particles and how they cause gravity? Haven't seen any mention of them in this thread

>>

>>7800806

string theory is a bunch of pot heads faggots tripping balls trying to explain something

>>

>>7800806

I highly doubt, that video assumes too much about reality. To treat lines as actualities of substance is at best descriptive and misconstrues a fundamental difference between conscious activities involving definitions of purely ideological structures applied to everyday experience.

>>

>>7800847

dont be such a butthurt famboy

>>

the concept of light is wrong,

space =/= time

fuck you all niggers

>>

>>7800861

>space =/= time

Tell that to the inside of a black hole.

>>

>>7800861

Well it's hard to convince people time doesn't exist as it does in their native experience. People still believe that WW1 still exists somewhere far enough away from the earth, without reconciling the common notion that nothing violates c. That the idea is speculative at best and is incapable of being validated.

>>

>>7800877

>That the idea is speculative at best and is incapable of being validated.

Like most theoretical physics.

>>

Gravity doesn't pull stuff in. It pushes the vacuum of space away from matter.

>>

>>7800865

inside a black hole there is nothing besides compressed matter, there is no "dimension" inside a black hole

>>

>>7800837

I had typed out a whole post about that, but I accidentally closed the tab and lost it.

Short version: All known fields and forces can be described in terms of virtual and real particles. Particles are quantized excitations in the field, like a plucked string; virtual particles are, among other things, disturbances in the field that don't fit that description, which are modeled in the math of quantum field theory by particles with impossible mass, energy, velocity, and momentum. They're bookkeeping tools, basically, that only exist in situations where they can't be observed.

To find the probability of some event in quantum field theory - say, you know there's an photon at point A, and you want to find the probability of observing it at point B - you sum up all the possible and impossible paths that particle could take between A and B, and take the result. To get a more precise answer, you look at the contributions from increasingly less probable but more complex paths, based on the way that the different particle fields can interact with each other - maybe you look at the possibility that the photon splits into a virtual electron and positron for a brief moment before recombining into a photon again, and the possibility that one of those particles in turn spits out a virtual photon that gets reabsorbed later, and the possibility that along the way that virtual photon splits briefly into another virtual electron and positron ...

Of course, there are infinitely many of these increasingly convoluted paths, the number exploding exponentially the less and less probable you cast your net. And, if you're not very careful with your bookkeeping, you'll find that even though the paths get less probable as they get more complex, the number of possible paths rises so fast that the sum explodes to infinity. Quantum field theory has a mathematical trick, called "renormalization", which is necessary to get any coherent answer at all.

[cont]

>>

So what exactly is happening to the space where a black hole exists?

>>

>>7800900

Do you know what a singularity is?

>>

>>7800522

Mathematics isn't science. And its only utility comes from applying it to real world phenomena, so the fact that you can make proofs that satisfy infinite functions while you can't do the same kind of thing in real world experimentation is meaningless, and only serves to satisfy your masturbatory delusions.

>>

>>7800903

How can you call virtual particles impossible if you can so easily assume they can exist?

>>

>>7800903

However, if you try to quantize the gravitational field in the same manner (it's got infinite range and couples to the mass-energy-momentum tensor, which means it'd be represented by a spin-2 boson) , things just break down entirely. The problem is, the gravitational field couples to *everything* with energy - including gravity waves, which have energy. Which means that gravitons, themselves, gravitate.

So to analyze a situation involving a graviton, you have to deal with the virtual gravitons produced by that graviton, and the virtual gravitons produced by those, and.... it blows up to infinity instantly, and renormalization cannot help you.

Trying to find ways of doing the opposite - describing quantum fields in terms of curved spacetime - has met with slightly more success (this is where things like string theory's 11 folded-up extra dimensions come from) but is still not doing great.

A fundamental revolution in the way we look at both systems is likely necessary, but since the realm in which quantum-gravitational corrections would yield any detectable results is so utterly insane - the most energetic particle ever observed (an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray called the Oh-My-God particle, a single proton with the kinetic energy of a fast-pitch baseball) was not even one ten-millionth of the way to the energy scale where the contributions of gravity would matter - there is an absolute lack of experimental data to provide any hints as to where to go from here, and none is likely to be forthcoming for a very long time.

So physicists have basically resorted to aesthetic and philosophical considerations to try to find some way to go from here. So far, not much luck on that front.

>>

>>7800877

WWI does exist in another spacetime coordinate, which happens to lie in our past light cone. Whether it's accessible from our current coordinate is another matter.

>>

>>7800912

Nothing because black holes (with a singularity) in the traditional sense don't exist and cannot possibly come into existence by principle.

>>

>>7800450

>Upset about experts using simplified language to describe a complex subject to laypeople.

>>

>>7800927

So then what is really happening at places where people claim black holes are?

>>

>>7800931

>describing gravity in terms of gravity

>OK

>>

>>7800920

The phenomena described by "virtual particles" are real; but they're not really made up of particles at all.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

can explain this better than I can.

>>

>>7800924

Damn good explanation. So is it pretty much impossible to ever come to a definitive answer until we can build a particle accelerator the size of Saturn or what?

>>

>>7800932

Probably objects that are on their way to becoming true black holes, such that gravity has reached a point sufficiently strong enough to create an event horizon and appear to be a black hole, but the singularity cannot by definition ever form because the time required for such a process is infinite. So we're stuck with black holes that are literally so close to being formed, but in reality will never get the chance to form before they ultimately decay in finite time and cease to exist altogether. It's actually kind of depressing in a strange way

>>

>>7800946

And what's stopping the singularity from forming?

>>

>>7800926

I'm glad you believe cones exist in corporeal substance. I'm certain there is a "infinite" amount of possible "spacetimes" where WW1 was fought with laser beams.

What's the premise of a light cone if it exists around each particle of your composition and it cannot leave it's field of interaction? It would seem redundant other than the application of signal modulation in satellites. Yet, how can something exist outside itself? It's almost... magic.

>>

>>7800924

that's pretty depressing honestly.

>>

>>7800949

Because the time required for it to form is infinite due to gravitational time dilation. It's the same reason why even if a true black hole does exist, nothing can ever really fall into it from an outside perspective because crossing the event horizon takes an infinite amount of time.

>>

>>7800950

What the absolute fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with an infinite amount of spacetimes and you obviously have no idea what a light cone is (spoiler alert, it's not a physical cone of light). WWI has a spacetime coordinate of Earth's 3 spatial dimensions along with the time dimension of the 1910's, which is different than the spacetime coordinate we are currently in because although we have the same spatial coordinates (roughly), the time coordinate has changed. Go educate yourself a little before you make yourself look like a fucking idiot again

>>

>>7800522

Too bad Maths is shit

>>

>>7800973

I'm so glad reality has 3 scalar dimensional lines perpendicular to each other that undergo transformations over the course of another physical line we come to know of time. I wonder when physicist will discover pi on the moon. It's almost like the physical structure of the universe thinks just like me. I'm so sorry. I should just lay across a train track's parallel rails and kill myself.

>>

>>7800522

>*tips non-Euclidean saddle shape*

Enjoy basically doing a humanity.

>r-real world applications dont matter

>muh truth

You're a redditor.

QED

>>

>>

>>7800946

I'm a bit confused. IIRC, all matter that enters a black hole will fall into the singularity in finite proper time. Should that then not be true for the formation of the singularity as well, i.e. from the point of view of the collapsing star, would it not form in a finite amount of proper time?

What you said would then just mean that we cannot ever observe a singularity from an outside perspective. (provided they even exist)

>>

>>7801039

>Mathematics professor:

This is the whole explanation of [statement]. Now, we will go through the rigorous complete proof of [statement], as that is our duty as mathematicians. To truly understand the universe.

>Physics professor

This is the whole explanation of [statement].

...

...

Everyone got it? We don't need any explanation so lets move on now haha. You are such good goy, students :). Good goy. If any of you asks questions you will be expelled haha. Thank you goy.

>>

>>7801047

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPH7f_7ZlzxTi6kS4vCmv4ZKm9u8g5yic

>>

>>7801054

>Schuller

Fuck, are you from my university?

>>

>>7801054

>All pure mathematics fields

Oh you are such a good goy. Getting excuses for your physics jews overlords. Such good goy.

Anyways, that is like going to a sociology stats class, see the professor prove something and then assert

>See! Sociology is as rigorous as pure mathematics! Haha I have won now! Am I a good goy now?

>>

>>7800522

Axioms are the experiments of math. Everything past that just like in physics is just logical deduction and both are on equal footing because what they talk about are slightly different things.

>>

>>7801047

ooo dis some stinky bait. gl hf

>>

>>7801075

>Comparing the process of finding the most logical set of basic statements to build upon our knowledge with the process of making assertions out of limited data.

>Our motion equation worked in this situation so it is now proved! Now believe me, good goy. Buy my book too which covers the equation, goy. It is only 60 shekels my goy. Enjoy!

>>

>>7801039

From the perspective of matter falling in or in this case the collapsing star, then yes it will only take finite time to cross into the black hole but this more just mathematical result than a physical consideration, because by the time you hit the event horizon there is no universe for the black hole to be in, since a literal eternity has elapsed, which in and of itself isn't something that really has much meaning. And once you get past the event horizon the physics pretty much break down entirely.

Furthermore, any black hole will evaporate due to Hawking radiation in a finite amount of time from the outside perspective so by this logic the black hole would completely disappear before anything got a chance to cross the event horizon. This leads to some rather bizarre physical implications. The outside observer would see the black hole slowly evaporate over billions of years while also noting that the observer has still not crossed the event horizon. So from the infalling observer's perspective, they would experience billions of years worth of evaporation in an extremely small amount of time. But other theorists have come to conclusion that the infalling observer will not observe this evaporation and cross the event horizon just as we said before. This is where the logic of the situation breaks down entirely and there really isn't a plausible way of explaining it. The mathematical predictions of general relativity are accurate and useful for the areas in which we've been able to test them but at this point we have no idea if they really hold at spacetime curvatures as intense as a black hole.

>>

>>7801085

It's an interesting reflection on your psychological construction that you are trying this hard to make everyone believe math is superior because it is perfectly neat by design, but you seem to disregard the fact that it's all imaginary too. Is the muddled unknown of reality just too much for you to handle? You need something where it is all perfectly laid out for you so you can feel safe and secure, snickering away to yourself, "ahhahah those fucking faggots actually trying to use real data to predict and understand the reality they live in! But not me, I have my numbers and imaginary functions that are free of all impurities hehehe" as you furiously masturbate to the sweet pixelated anticipation of Wolframalpha's next calculation.

>>

>>7801108

Typical reasoning of someone who doesn't know formal logic.

>You are against this field?

>lol it must be because you don't understand it! Disregard all previous opinions. You are just too dumb to understand it.

Also funny how you just assert this, as I have been claiming that physicists just assert shit and call it a day.

But yeah, criticism be damned. Anyone who opposes anything is motivated by their lack of understanding of said thing. Of course! The perfect cop out.

>You don't like my political views?

>Is the [propositions of my politics] too much for you to handle?

>You don't like my work

>Is the [content of my work] too much for you to handle?

This reasoning is pathetic. You would expect more from someone in STEM but I guess you must lower your expectations when thinking about physicists.

>>

>>7800522

>math

>set in stone

>>

>>7801124

None of godel's theorems say that mathematical proofs are not absolute statements. And if any of them did, then his theorems would also not be absolute statements. Contradicting everything and coming back to where we started.

Mathematical proofs ARE absolute statements. Can you prove otherwise?

>>

>>7801119

I have nothing against math, you're just a complete fucking retard who is incapable of facing reality your efforts to proudly boast your handicap on a forum for self gratification are both sad and pathetic. Enjoy your delusional "superiority" friend

>>

>>7801146

Oh I'm not superior to you or anyone. That would be debatable and I have no way to back that up and as you know, I wouldn't want to go down to the level of a physicists-tier argument.

What I am saying is that mathematics is inherently and absolutely, with no doubt, superior to physics as a truth-seeking tool. Hopefully with my previous posts I have proved that.

>>

>>7800522

mathematics isn't a science.

>>

>>7801153

>He is winning in the argument

>LETS MOVE THE GOALPOST NOW!

Oh man, physicist's tactics just get more and more retarded.

It is definitely fun to get the monkeys dancing. You get a first hand taste of how stupid they really are.

>>

>>7800650

>"An object not being affected by an outside force will follow the shortest path between two points."

implying objects know beforehand what path is the shortest path

>>

>>7801126

>Mathematical proofs ARE absolute statements. Can you prove otherwise?

Burden of proof wouldn't be on me to be honest, I have no reason to believe mathematical proofs are absolute statements.

>>

>>7801126

>Mathematical proofs ARE absolute statements. Can you prove otherwise?

undergrads detected. can you learn formal logic instead of shitposting ?

>>

>>7800761

It's actually five dimensions. XYZT spacetime must warp relative to something, that is dimension W.

>>

>>7801126

mathematics are so far conventions. and so far, you cannot prove otherwise

>>

>>7800450

Don't use shit analogies like the one in your pic. It's simply wrong, just like comparing electricity with water.

>>

>>7801338

What makes you think it must warp "relative" to something?

>>

>>7800761

>This is why the balls on a rubber sheet is used to teach you bullshit lies.

FTFY, there's nothing intuitive about it. It's just wrong.

>>

>>7800463

What are you talking man!

Scientists are the best kind of human.(not talking about social "scientist" or some shit like this)

>>

>>7802169

What makes you think that spacetime can warp without reference? Nice scare quotes.

>>

>>7800450

Things pull each other is what he meant to say

>>

>>7800459

>science is the pursuit of absolute truth

no. its not.

>>

>>7800450

>they're still telling undergrads that gr is the virtual graviton exchange in the square of yang mills theory

>>

>>7803153

The same way a 2D surface can stretch without becoming 3D

>>

>>7803378

Who said it became 3d. The 2D X/Y surface in OP pic clearly has a Z reference in regards to its shape, yet remains 2D.

>>

Nothing but herping and derping in this thread.

>>

>>7800450

Shouldn't anyone older than 10 be able to understand the analogy without actually performing experiments like in your pic?

>>

>>7803442

You are all hugely misunderstanding the purpose of outreach. It's not to teach people, it's to make them interested to the 0th order to try and snare them. Demos and visuals do this; talking puts them to sleep

>>

>>7800450

>durr hurr I'm well aware of the inconsistency in this analogy and most likely heard it from somewhere else

>durr hurr repeat inconsistent analogy on 4chan and reel in everyone.

>>

i always thought of it as a vector field where the mass increases so the field of gravity force vectors all increase too in proportion. is this not the case?

>>

>>7801407

>go to bangladesh with 6000 dollar

>profit?

>>

>>7803909

would you honestly put your dick in 60 cents vag? must be the nastiest thing ever.

>>

File: a8e267cd6dd04bfdec7ea35534b3643e[1].jpg (38 KB, 736x629)
Image search:
[iqdb]
[SauceNao]
[Google]

38 KB, 736x629

>>7800499

kek kek lol XDDD

1/x is actually continuous tho.

Thread images: 10

Thread DB ID: 455911

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's