/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11777543
thing go fast
thing going fast go up until not goign fast anymore

>>11777543
work

W = F̂⋅d̂
The F̂ is gravity.

Hitler did nothing wrong. And he's coming back.

>>11777777
Numbers don't lie

>>11777777
nice sexts

>>11777777

>>11777777
>those numbers
I expect nothing less from /sci/

>>11777777
science says yes

>>11777777

>>11777777
based

>>11777777

>>11777777
based and checked

>>11777777
Based law of nazi conservation.

>>11777777
Well every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so it wouldn't surprise me

>>11777777
It's amazing that a dictator from 80 years ago, that ruined his country and killed himself, still has fans.

>>11777777
The numbers do not lie

>>11777926
>t. Cohen Goldblatt

>>11777543
I hate the word converted. It is so misleading

>>11777957
How so? Isn't that literally what's happening?

>>11777962
What do you mean by converted?

>>11777926
You don't seem to understand that before the war, Nazi Germany was quite prosperous. Many people thus see his ideology as a success.
Besides that, you must admit it's a very attractive ideology, very aggressive and with strong aesthetics.
Besides, what would not killing himself would have achieved? Under the control of Russia and the West, he wouldn't have been able to keep the German people awake and he would have been executed either way.

>>11777968
A process which starts with one thing and ends with an equivalent amount of another, for example currency

>>11777976
Ok good. What do you mean by energy

>>11777978
potential energy and kinetic energy

>>11777982
Yes but what is energy

>>11777986
Go stare at the sun and you will get some deep understanding of energy.

>>11777986
nobody really knows what energy is

>>11777972
>quite prosperous
gun bubble economy + slavery
and ended in fubar like all bubbles do

>>11777991
Well we know there is some quantity such that when we add up everything at the end in an isolated system it remains constant. We do not know why - its not especially obvious.

Energy is not 'converted' it is 'conserved'. When you throw a ball up is one form of energy 'converting' to another - no. The ball is doing work against a field. The mechanical work it is doing and the work it could potentially do is always adds to the same quantity. I just think conversion is a bad word because it misses the subtlety of the concept of energy.

>>11777777
Based truth.

>>11777777
And we'll destroy him like our grandfathers did.

>>11777993
>ended in fubar like all bubbles do
>ww2 destroying the country
what a ridiculous comparison,could econ get any more pseud

Is energy real?

>>11777777
>7s
>not 8s
Not sure of serious.

>>11778011
Did your grandfather's mop away his ashes?

>>11778037
about as real as time i say, a persistent, elusive and convenient abstraction

>>11777543
jumping

>>11777777
Amen

>>11778011

>>11777777
based

>>11777777
pfffft

>>11777777
mein Gott

>>11777986
Everything is energy. Energy is the material everything we know of is made out of. Mass is a form of energy, bonds are a form of energy, movement is a form of energy, ("vertical") position is a form of energy.

>>11777777
Scientifically speaking, why do Jannies like sucking dick?

god damn it what did i miss now

>>11779517
Position is only a form of energy in the presence of a field.

where is the post? what was there?

>>11779612
>>11779637
Hitler Praise

>>11779620
You get the idea. Literally everything is energy, which is why its conservation is such an intuitive idea. Stuff doesn't just disappear.

>>11779517
Bullshit. This is worse than pop-sci seriously.

>>11780062
how

>>11780068
Every single statement in there was wrong.

>>11780103
>mass is a form of energy
literally true
>bonds are a form of energy
literally true
>movement is a form of energy
literally true
>("vertical") position is a form of energy
debatably true

>>11780219
Literally all of that is false. Goddammit learn some physics before spouting bullshit.

Mass is NOT a form of energy
Bonds HAVE energy
Movement HAS energy
Position HAS energy RELATIVE TO SOMETHING

You made some claims, produce proof or refrain from posting.

>>11780219
Retard test: is energy conserved?

>>11780250
The difference between the things you and I said are differences in interpretations, not in facts

>>11780252
Yes (unless quantum fuckery blah blah). Which is intuitively true too - how would stuff suddenly get lost?

>>11777986
It's just a concept we use to understand the behavior of observed phenomena around us. All of these conceptualizations are ultimately "unreal" in a sense, they don't actually "explain" the behavior itself but simply organize it in such a way that the human mind can both understand it and communicate it to others. There's no point trying to get to the bottom of these conceptualizations because they themselves are merely constructs in the first place, rather than objective realities in themselves.

The ultimate nature of reality, in my opinion, is simply experience or consciousness, and the particular objects encountered through it experience. Conceptualizations like "energy" or "laws" or "forces" or so on exist within that experiencing, but ultimately the phenomena studied exist identically, independent of those conceptualizations.

>>11780426
and the particular objects encountered through experience*

>>11780250
>Mass is NOT a form of energy
lmao

>>11777790 >>11777793 >>11777811 >>11777812 >>11777815 >>11777816 >>11777819 >>11777821 >>11777825 >>11777832 >>11777867 >>11777926 >>11777940 >>11778010 >>11778011 >>11778058 >>11778338 >>11778488 >>11778704 >>11778712 >>11779523

The censored post which these anons responded to can be viewed here: https://archive.is/2Ddkx and and also here: >>/sci/thread/S11777543

>>11780861
Thanks
Fuck jannies and fuck niggers

>>11780406
Provide a single source that's not old pop-sci and that supports your claims. You perpetuate these myths with such conviction, you surely have something to show for it.

>>11780443
Idiot. If you're claiming that "mass-energy equivalence" (big misnomer) means that's they're the same, explain why there's a conversion factor of c^2. I'm well aware that they can be _converted_ into each other. What do you think the fact that the term "converted" is used here means?
Bloody hell you people here are ignorant as fuck.

>>11781149
>Idiot. If you're claiming that "centimeter-meter equivalence" (big misnomer) means that's they're the same, explain why there's a conversion factor of 100.

>>11780412
You failed. Thanks for playing.

>>11781153
>100 has units and physical meaning

>>11781202
No to both of these. To say otherwise is to argue that 100 centimeters and 1 meter are not the same thing.

>>11781233
lmao. Yes, that's exactly my point. But that's also what you're implying with your comparison to c^2. So you're agreeing that your argument was wrong?

>>11777982
untangible version of mass; currency of living beings
>>11781149
they're typically not the same because duh you can see mass not energy but in field of equations they are treated as the same
>>11781233
if you theoretically made a cube and made a 100% copy of it, one can argue they're typically not the same but can be treated as the same cube

>>11777543
isn't potential energy literally defined to be the rest of the energy which is not kinetic energy ?

>>11781149
c is not a conversion factor it's a proportionality constant

>>11778024
You are aware now that m = E in natural units.

>>11781451

>>11781149
Because energy is defined in Mass * Length / Time units

causality

>>11781476
that's momentum

>>11781479
>>11781476
both wrong lmao

>>11781494
Fuck off faggot, I'm not wrong.

>>11781502
1 joule = 1 kg * 1 m * 1 m/s^2
energy = mass * length^2 / time^2

fuckoff retard

>>11781367
>they're typically not the same
>typically
So they're not the same thing.
>in field of equations they are treated as the same
Wrong. You're still confusing mass with the energy term that comes from mass. Mass contributes an energy of mc^2 to the total energy of a system. You can't say height is an energy because height (relative to a point) contributes to the total energy of a system.

>>11781476
>>11781474
Doesn't explain or refute anything.
In natural units k Boltzmann = speed of light. Completely meaningless.

>>11777544
>/Thread

>>11777543
Nobody known the exact mechanism, we just know energy must be conserved. From that it follows energy must be converted somehow, but nobody really knows how it happens. We don't even know what energy is really. It just werks (tm)

for electromagnetism, kinetic photons get converted into potential photons. these are similar to "virtual particles" in the sense that they don't actually move in space, but still exist
we don't know how the process happens, but each force-carrying particle has a "kinetic" and "potential" doublet that it can oscillate between

>>11780250
>produce proof
physics has not concept of proof. thats what mathematicians do since they are disconnected from reality.

>>11780861
a lot worse things are being said on /sci/ every few minutes. i doubt thats because of hitler. that get was probably fake.

>>11777543
Energy isn't physically "real". The notion of potential and kinetic energy is a mathematical tool for calculating the positions and velocities of particles in physical systems.

>>11783389
So you got nothing. Noted.