/sci/ - Science & Math

do you understand? even meme answers are welcome

No one gives a fuck, it's irrelevant, induction is King, and you're mother is basically a publicumdump.

>>12418926
lol, I love meme answers

>>12418933
yeah i know induction have problems lol but the rest is 100% accurate tho

>>12418878
What a dumb fucking question. You should be ashamed

What’s the stationary motor of Aristoteles? I Googled it but didn’t find much.

And gravitational fields takes no energy to “activate”, neither do they produce any. Like all other fields they only cause other things to interact, don’t interact themselves. We can siphon energy from other things by using this interaction, but the net-total stays the same. I don’t know if that answers the question.

(And subnote: they can interact with other fields, but the result is the same. No net energy gain)

>>12418977
>What’s the stationary motor of Aristoteles?

>necessarily everything that moves is moved by something else (the efficient cause of movement);
>therefore all movement is situated in a causal chain;
>This causal chain cannot be infinite, it must have a beginning;
at the beginning of the causal chain there must be something that "moves without being moved", a first cause, an immobile motor.

>Like all other fields they only cause other things to interact
why did these "things" started to interact?

>>12419119
start*

Just read up on this

Wtf I believe in God now

>>12419119
>The causal chain cannot be infinite

Why not? If one would accept God to be timeless, why not the universe itself?

Even if we suppose there exists an unmoved mover, it is another matter entirely to furnish that thing with all the attributes of God.

This argument, to me, seems to stem from a discomfort with the notion of infinity. Or with a desire to have the universe conform to the human experience, where things are finite and local.

>>12419119
Why can’t the chain just loop around like a snake biting its own tail? :D

Though this doesn’t really answer the core of the question, since you just could ask “why does the chain exist”.

Nobody knows. Whether you believe in a god or not you’re assuming that something always has existed. In the end, the best answer anybody has is “because it just is that way” or “I don’t know”.

>>12418878
Isn't that just planet spinning?

>>12418878
gravity is just the positional probability of mass particles averaging out with each other. more mass = more weight in the average. the particles calculate their locations, and then the average of all mass particles in the universe is applied, weighted on distance, and then they move to the new spot. it gives the illusion of movement, but no force is actually being applied.

All motion, mass, and energy in the universe is ultimately derived from the indescribably large amount of energy that constituted the entire universe in the first moments of its existence.
No one knows why or how that energy existed and the notion of an "efficient cause" can't be applied to it (without making additional assumptions) since that's the earliest moment in time to begin with.
If that idea makes you uncomfortable then feel free to substitute your own explanation.