/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14962301
>everything is revolving around it while it remains perfectly at rest
That still sounds like things are moving to me.

>>14962384
Interesting
picunrel

>>14883960
>(whatever positive charge actually physically is and how it works)
I imagine it's like if you stood at the North Pole and looked at the ground, it would look like it's spinning the opposite direction compared to standing at the South Pole and looking at the ground.

>Why do, or do they, electrons orbit nucleus, and not attracted straight stick like glue,or anvil to earth. I geuss fractional negative charge quark/s always shoot photons at electrons.
Maybe their angular momentum is significantly greater than their linear momentum?

>Moon is attracted to earths core,
For all we know, the moon is actually ''attracted'' to the edge of the atmosphere.

>>14853966
>Infinity does not exist in reality. Things like Pi are proof mathematics is inferior to reality. If infinity existed, circles would never be able to be completed, which is obviously not the case.
Maybe that there are certain functions in the natural laws that work on more than a 2D plane.
Like, if you were to add more dimensions, you could probably do some mathematical process that creates some 3D shape with nice, evenly round numbers, and then from that you can deduce the shape that creates "irrational" dimensions.

>>14846241
>they are so that you dont see a pixel not meant for you to see at a certain angle
Ahhh ok, now i c what u mean.

>>14846242

>>14831051
>The true surface area of a sphere is...
I think you can think of it in terms of compiling the slices of the sphere's circumference.
So you take the circumference of a sphere from the middle using the radius of the sphere.
So a sphere with r=4, take a slice of circle with r=4.

If you were to take the circumference measurenments of slices of circle as you moved down the sphere, the poles would come to a point of "0" eventually.
So we need to take the geodesic value between the 0-90°(so 45°) of the sphere's circumference; because that is the average area-value of the "slice" when calculating each slice from the equator->pole.
So, 45° is 1/8 of a full rotation, and with a radius of 4, that gives us 3.14(pi) length so if we take the circumference, and multiply it by 8 iterations, we're given the surface area
So with r=4, then C=25.13, 1/8C=pi, 8C=SurfaceArea

But yes, the math does start to become odd at smol numbers

>>14840562
Sooooo.... just sci-fi LARPs basically?

I don't think anything in your post is true.
I'm not necessarily calling you a liar, I just don't think you're scientifically accurate.

>>14840682
They lie about that stuff.

>>14839750
>Particles are masses.
>If you listen you might learn.
Ok, I can accept that. But do you not believe "mass" might be a fluctuating measurement based on things like 'gravity', or 'velocity/momentum'?

>>14833120
>would you ever reach a distance on such an incredibly small scale that pushing the object by said distance makes no change in space at all?
Maybe

I have a theory about Gravity(and other Particles/Fields)
I believe there are points tiers of the Earth where gravity becomes distorted from the Surface.

I believe that there is a Gravity "Field" that permeates the planet, and could maintain different gravitational zones by applying simple geometric observations in a practical way to theoretical models with testable and verifiable predictions.
If you assume that fields/forces can interact with each other on varying scales, then you can extrapolate some mathematical models.
Like, by taking the ratio of a circle's Circumference:Area, then you could find the minimum/maximum values that a given phenomenea will have, before it carries over to a characteristically different phenomenea, or particle, or field, or whatever.
For example, when a "particle"'s dimensions reach a value such that the circumference(or Surface-Area) is greater than it's Area(or Volume), then that might be where the cutoff is for that formula's applicability, and you shift-gears into the formula that picks up where the previous ends.

Or it could be the opposite of that, where the "particle/field" is stable until a certain ratio(s) are reached where in the area grows larger than the circumference.
This could certainly lead to "tiers" of energy levels where the perimeter:area of molecular particles are subject to the Rules of Ratio. Where their (sub)atomic dimensions can be assumed to have shaped-fields which are responsible for their given properties.
You can imagine overlapping fields that have similar rules, but operate at different "base lengths". So that if you imagine fields formed as concentric circles, then you can decrease the radius of each by "1", and there will be different effects marked by different benchmarks.

>>14806279
Btw, I have a theory about Gravity.
I believe there are points tiers of the Earth where gravity becomes distorted from the Surface.

I believe that there is a Gravity "Field" that permeates the planet, and could maintain different gravitational zones by applying simple geometric observations in a practical way to theoretical models with testable and verifiable predictions.
If you assume that fields/forces can interact with each other on varying scales, then you can extrapolate some mathematical models.
Like, by taking the ratio of a circle's Circumference:Area, then you could find the minimum/maximum values that a given phenomenea will have, before it carries over to a characteristically different phenomenea, or particle, or field, or whatever.
For example, when a "particle"'s dimensions reach a value such that the circumference(or Surface-Area) is greater than it's Area(or Volume), then that might be where the cutoff is for that formula's applicability, and you shift-gears into the formula that picks up where the previous ends.

Or it could be the opposite of that, where the "particle/field" is stable until a certain ratio(s) are reached where in the area grows larger than the circumference.
This could certainly lead to "tiers" of energy levels where the perimeter:area of molecular particles are subject to the Rules of Ratio. Where their (sub)atomic dimensions can be assumed to have shaped-fields which are responsible for their given properties.
You can imagine overlapping fields that have similar rules, but operate at different "base lengths". So that if you imagine fields formed as concentric circles, then you can decrease the radius of each by "1", and there will be different effects marked by different benchmarks.

>>14806713