/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14879050
Holy shit, is this a COAM thread in disguise?

>>14857650
>What reference frame are you measuring speed from?
Err... whatever frame of reference you decide to measure with?

>>14846189
>thank you very much this looks advanced and interesting i will have a look into it though it will take me time
Sure thing, I hope it proves to be useful.
>here is an improved version besides perspective and stereoskopy this also includes occlusion
Cool, that's an interesting layout, is that how the projected image is splayed along the edges, with the sharp-angled prisms?

>>14846199
>though if you measure the time the photon takes to traverse the shape you could measure how much it bounced around for example within a sphere
Yes, I think finding the "bounces" could be best found by shaping the inner chamber with different geometrical dimensions would also be helpful in shaping desired conditions, like magnetic field positions.

>>14807337
>Does this imply, if stationary, a body appeared in the middle of this medium, the medium that existed where the body now does would be compressed around the body? (Different mediums react different ways, how does this one act)
>If a body had a lot of cracks and holes in it, would the medium go inside the body?
>Are massive molecular bodies like the Earth like water strainers to the medium? Some more dense and solid than others let less or no medium inside?
Yes, I am more inclined to believe that various 'Mediums' are more like Tessellated Fractal Pieces, which give rise to other properties like "Mass", "Charge", "Spin"; not the other way around.
I think studying the relationships between various 2D/3D Objects and the geometric configurations they form is the key to solving the different "Particles", and When/Where/How/Why we can expect to observe certain "Particles" with non-random accuracy.

>>14797142
>>14797150
>Rotations conserve volume, brainlet.
I don't exactly know what you mean, but I feel like that could either be True OR False

>>14797425
>You can scale a line just by linearly transforming each point.
Wrong.
>If you multiply each element of a set by a constant, you get a different set representing a line of different length but it no points were removed or added so they can't have a different number of points.
No, this isn't true.

>Be Circle
>Have 2 Lines, Radius, and Circumference
>Shrink Radius down to the smallest number in existence
>The Circumference shrinks down as it scales with the Radius
>Oh wait; the Circumference literally can NOT shrink down to the size of the Radius, because of [2πr]
>To do so, you would have to reconfigure the properties of the Line(s) that make the Circle, Or;
>Reorient the Circle's Plane/Angle of Observation, so as to produce an answer that satisfies the solution

>>14797434
>would you argue that there's more space in 2D than 1D space, or less space in 2D, than in 3D?
There's exponentially more "Space" between 3D v 2D, than there is from 2D v 1D