Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
The Edge
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 763
- 262
Science bros, I need your thoughts.
Just got back from a philosophy debate that I only caught part of, so forgive me if I do a terrible job explaining this. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. The argument was about movement, and how it's seemingly impossible.
The notion was basically if you take a snapshot of a moment in time, things are frozen, motionless. Particle 1 is at position A. Let's say you advance to the next "moment" and Particle 1 is now at position B. How did it get there? It seemingly appeared there by magic. How is it possible that that motion happened within two still moments in time. It's like hitting pause on your movie then letting it advance to the next click. Movement happened, but where? You can say the motion must have happened in between the clicks, but you can divide the moment in time down to infinity and you're still left with a moment in time where Particle 1 was at position A and then it's not. How is movement possible?
Again sorry if I'm not explaining this thought experiment clearly.
Just got back from a philosophy debate that I only caught part of, so forgive me if I do a terrible job explaining this. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. The argument was about movement, and how it's seemingly impossible.
The notion was basically if you take a snapshot of a moment in time, things are frozen, motionless. Particle 1 is at position A. Let's say you advance to the next "moment" and Particle 1 is now at position B. How did it get there? It seemingly appeared there by magic. How is it possible that that motion happened within two still moments in time. It's like hitting pause on your movie then letting it advance to the next click. Movement happened, but where? You can say the motion must have happened in between the clicks, but you can divide the moment in time down to infinity and you're still left with a moment in time where Particle 1 was at position A and then it's not. How is movement possible?
Again sorry if I'm not explaining this thought experiment clearly.
The problem is "dividing the moment in time down to infinity". This doesn't make sense. As time progresses infinitesimally so does movement which is distance over time.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,882
- 28,597
laws of nature have the mother explination 'because they happen'
Take gravity. Its an indisputable consistantly demonstratable fact that it works and mathematically how it works. But the reason for why is one of the oldest baffling questions in science. WHY are two objects attracted to each other. We don't have the slightest fucking clue.
So things move because they do. Thats just nature.
Take gravity. Its an indisputable consistantly demonstratable fact that it works and mathematically how it works. But the reason for why is one of the oldest baffling questions in science. WHY are two objects attracted to each other. We don't have the slightest fucking clue.
So things move because they do. Thats just nature.
Kuro
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 8,929
- 23,466
BrotherWu
MAGA
- 3,259
- 6,502
You know, I almost have started a new existential thread a few times because this is really interesting to me. Why does gravity attract? Why does its effect drop of at the square of the distance instead of the cube? Why should 'c' be the speed that it is instead of faster or slower? Why should there beanylimit to the speed of anything? Why do the particles we know of behave the way they do? You get the idea.
I find these questions to be very interesting to consider although I guess most experts seem to dismiss them, as you do, to "Well, because that is how Nature works." Maybe that is the only answer we can muster now but I am interested in the antecedent or catalyst to the universe as it exists, if those concepts even have any meaning.
The Edge
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 763
- 262
YES! That's it, exactly. Thank you. Worded much better as well.
Reading some of the responses on the wiki, they refer to time being the answer. The topic came up because the debate was about whether or not time actually exists.
Valishar
Molten Core Raider
- 766
- 424
I can answer the second question because it's a consequence of conservation of energy.
It's easier to think of it backwards and the source is a light bulb or something emanating radiation equally in all directions. As that light spreads out it still maintains the same total amount of energy because energy is conserved. But it's all smeared out so the energy density is lower in proportion to the area. Since it is basically a point source you can describe the area the energy has to go through as a sphere. Area of a sphere is 4*PI*r^2. Hence the inverse square law.
If you want something to fall off by a cubed it can't be a conserved quantity. Or it has to be directed in some way.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
Time is a consequence of motion (unlikely to be the other way around), and you have to pay attention to how both are measured or else you'll wrap a paradox around your noggin and start asking what rainbows mean.
Which IS interesting and great. But, I mean, you can easily confuse yourself into timecube territory. That's what those Aristolean paradoxes are great, because in working through them philosophically it very much clarifies the mind as to what the nature or reality probably cannotbe.
tl;dr -- "It's just turtles all the way down, dude" -- Aristotle
Which IS interesting and great. But, I mean, you can easily confuse yourself into timecube territory. That's what those Aristolean paradoxes are great, because in working through them philosophically it very much clarifies the mind as to what the nature or reality probably cannotbe.
tl;dr -- "It's just turtles all the way down, dude" -- Aristotle
The Edge
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 763
- 262
If it's true that time doesn't exist, it seems that a plausible explanation is that our perception creates the illusion of motion.
I've read a bunch of the different philosopher's ideas and they don't do it for me. But taking away time seems to open new possibilities.
I've read a bunch of the different philosopher's ideas and they don't do it for me. But taking away time seems to open new possibilities.
Yeah. Motion is the change in distance between two objects in relation to a reference frame (example: the entire fucking universe). I'd love to hear an argument against that.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,341
- 80,677
I've thought about the same thing, basically, "Why can objects have speed/motion?". It's above my paygrade though and I doubt any answer I understood would answer the question at a depth I accepted. I imagine if I reduced any component of physics to its core components I'd have similar quandries, even combustion and strong interaction.
When I write a game engine, I give a component a 'velocity', then at iterative timesteps I multiply that velocity by a timestep to determine the change in location. At some level there are 3 64bit floating point numbers that are aware of this velocity. In the real world, where does that velocity reside?
When I write a game engine, I give a component a 'velocity', then at iterative timesteps I multiply that velocity by a timestep to determine the change in location. At some level there are 3 64bit floating point numbers that are aware of this velocity. In the real world, where does that velocity reside?
The same place your mass is stored if you were frozen in time, it's part of the atoms that comprise your existence. If you were to insert yourself into you digital world, it'd be the same way. The laws that govern your world is dictated by programming and your velocity is stored as part of your object, but you couldn't observe it without the timestep.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,882
- 28,597
This sort of logic is extremely old. It actually originates with the greeks, but the first good records of it are Galilean. Anyone who wants to read about it should look up Galilean relativity. Essentially, scientists did tons of reference frame thought experiments. Like if a boat is moving, how can you tell if its moving without seeing the outside. The laws of physics within the boat are apparently the same as the laws of physics on land. This logic later turned into the relativity that we are more familiar, thanks to the hard mathematical work of lorentz (credit given to einstein)
It's a vast subject, so I won't really comment on it too much. The only thing that's certain is that its not a 'ridiculous' subject. Many extremely smart people (Newton in particular) devoted a large part of their lives thinking about it and developing math and explaining how the mechanics of nature work within it.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,341
- 80,677
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 21,882
- 28,597
Mass is constant. It does not change or alter arbitrarily ever.
When velocity changes, it leaves the atom typical. This can be shown in the transfer of momentum, its one of the basic Newtonian laws of physics. Are you arguing that theres a momentum swarm of particles that switch between atoms? This makes no sense compared to the current, much more simple reasoning that atoms have forces that interact, and those forces redirect the mass of the atoms involved based on how they interact.
Either way, this is silly.
Mudcrush Durtfeet
Hungry Ogre
- 2,428
- -757
You don't HAVE to do movement that way in a simulator. Instead of keeping track of a location and moving it in increments of some time, you can instead use an initial position and then calculate it's movement from there via formula (assuming that the movement can be described by a formula) and get its exact location (or probability cloud or whatever) for whatever exact duration from start that you want.
For example, a hypothetical particle being simulated, starting at 0 in a one dimensional space, it's position could be recorded as it's initial location + Formula for movement over time * time.
For example, a hypothetical particle being simulated, starting at 0 in a one dimensional space, it's position could be recorded as it's initial location + Formula for movement over time * time.