/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14961873
>What causes that continuous, eternal motion
God

>>14961877

>god is a pack mule constantly lifting things around the universe

lol what a cuck

I'm just gonna say it: inertia does not exist

We think it does, because "place in the universe" is a flimsy, poorly system in nature. There is no "place", there are only atoms.

When atoms touch each other they displace each other, because atoms have mass and very real physicality.

The reason some endless force keeps moving things to a direction on they are displaced, forever, is because things are not really being displaced. They are still.

It is just that the rules of the universe are bad at showing that they are still, and instead we get triked thinking there is motion, when in fact the universe simply forgot to do a "if displacement stopped, then stop displacing object"

We are probably a simulation and this is the first evidence of a bug in it.

>>14961873
It comes from the expansion of spacetime. The entire universe is sucking that apple away from you. Gravity is just resistance to suck.

>>14961873
>>as soon as my hand stops displacing things, the atoms on the apple should absolutely fucking stop
Why? Wouldn't you need an opposing force to stop it?
If maintaining speed when unopposed doesn't make sense to you. Do you believe an unmoving apple should just randomly accelerate away because maintaining a velocity of 0 doesn't make sense?

>>14961873
you are correct that it is bullshit.
there are many things with this universe that is, like the n-body problem, with n being 10^82, so every frame the universe does (10^82)^2 calculations effortlessly. That's also bullshit.

>>14961873
>apple should absolutely fucking stop - because there is NOTHING exerting force into them anymore

what? a force isn't required for movement to happen.

oh well, you displaced these atoms, now you have given them velocity and that says "keep going to a direction forever, lol".

>>14961914
>so every frame the universe does (10^82)^2 calculations effortlessly.
The universe isn't a machine, it doesn't calculate anything.

>>14961896
Time doesn't exist. It is not an actual physical property of the universe, that can be manipulated or seen.

It is just a made up concept we made to communicate something (in this case, what we perceive as passage of time)

>>14961905
>Wouldn't you need an opposing force to stop it?


Why? An opposing force to stop what? Nothing is displacing the apple anymore - it has no forces acting on it anymore. So why the fuck does it move?

> Do you believe an unmoving apple should just randomly accelerate away because maintaining a velocity of 0 doesn't make sense?
No, the apple should sit still unless displaced by something else in the moment

>>14961925
>you have given them velocity and that says "keep going to a direction forever, lol".


And what causes it to maintain velocity? The natural state of the apple is still, its atoms just circling around each other until they reach stability.

Then comes other atoms, bump into them... their stability of circling each other is kept.. but now all those atoms also move with a force to a direciton... forever, these atoms that previously did not do any of that.

It its senseless.

Something is applying continuous force into the apple. Inertia is a stupid concept. The apple doesn't keep moving because "it has a resistance to change its velocity", it keeps moving because something is pulling it after that initial bump

Or are you telling me the atoms of the apple simply all started moving left, in additing to orbiting around each other, and they move left because.. no reason? There is a reason. Those atoms are continuously making themselves move to the left after the initial bump, that takes something actively doing that

Ok, this is my theory of inertia, I just came up with it and I have no background in physics, but it is likely correct.

When you displace something with enough mass, you are displacing it through space, and space has a bunch of shit we can't detect properly yet (the pink dots).


When these pink dots get displaced themselves by the atoms of the apple, that interaction is what gives constant motion to the apple, so it keeps moving forever due to its interaction with these pink things.

If space was actually empty, the apple would come to a complete stop once whatever was displacing it stopped displacing it. But space is not empty, it is made of pink dots that will respond very physically to the atoms of the apple being shoveled into them

>>14961939
My dude, your problem is caused by a misunderstanding of Newton's first law.
A force on a mass produces an acceleration while its being applied, that acceleration generates a speed over the force's application, if there is no opposing force to generate negative acceleration (to reduce to speed to 0 again) the object will keep moving forward.

Not being actively pushed means that it wont accelerate, but it will keep the speed it had when it stopped accelerating.


Keep in mind that physically, there is no difference between an object perfectly still and an object going at a constant speed, mostly because that is a subjective trait you have given the object by arbitrarily setting a point of reference.

>>14961934
The apple is moving from your perspective, but it's still from the apple's perspective. You're still from your perspective, but you're actually on a spinning ball whizzing through space.

>No, the apple should sit still unless displaced by something else in the moment
Using your logic:
Why? Nothing is keeping the apple there - it has no forces acting on it. So why the fuck doesn't it move?

>>14961931
This. Time is a measure of the rate of change.

>>14961873
It's called "a force is required to get an object to change its motion"

>>14961958
>Keep in mind that physically, there is no difference between an object perfectly still and an object going at a constant speed, mostly because that is a subjective trait you have given the object by arbitrarily setting a point of reference.
Spinning, rocketing, twirling space testicle theory is obviously very rational.

>>14961954

And these pink things, are also what cause gravity.

Gravity and "inertia" are two sides of the same coin.

We know atoms through magnetic forces attract each other - when they do, they also displace these pink dots. When you have huge objects with a lot of mass, they have displaced so much of these pink dots in the universe, that you have a bunch of pink dots being throw against each other, without resolution, all fighting towards a central point.

These pink dots when trapped in this situation, is what create huge gravity fields pulling everything there, because that is what they do, they move stuff towards themselvels (gravity, that is, a bunch of pink dots converging at one location), or they move objects that are displaced into them (an apple thrown into them, they cause the apple to continuously move towards that direction)

So there you go, universe easily explained

Inertia and gravity are the same thing

>>14961962
Why?

Are you telling me that the object has motion WITHOUT any force, and a force has to stop it?

That sounds completely backwards. Object can only have motion if a force is giving it motion

>>14961964
My bad, I didn't expect bait on this board when I should have

>>14961967
You are confusing acceleration and velocity
A force gives acceleration and an opposing force takes that acceleration away (by adding acceleration in the opposite way)

Force itself has nothing to do with speed, or do you see any 'v' on "F=m*a"?

>>14961958
> but it will keep the speed it had when it stopped accelerating.

Something has to cause it to keep that speed. And that are the pink things on the universe interacting with it. Its continuous speed/displacement cannot come from nowhere/no reason

>>14961939

>The natural state of the apple is still
if you had said that 2400 years ago, Aristotle would have agreed, but you're kinda late for that.

>what causes it to maintain velocity?
nothing is needed to maintain velocity. it seems like you need to look up what we usually mean by force.

try reading Galileo's dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, it explains the core of inertia through really well thought experiments, it's fantastic.

>>14961885
>I'm just gonna say it: inertia does not exist
sure but not for any of the potsmoke reasons you listed
>>14961873
intertia is the byproduct of us being in a translational universe. inertia and momentum can be thought of as the movement force. A heavy object resists having its position changed, but still accepts positional energy or movement force when you push on it. Think of a boulder, one that you can barely lean but definitely not pick up or push over. When you put energy into that boulder it moves but doesn't keep moving, it only moves as much as the energy you put in allows vs. its self momentum under its own weight.

So when you throw an apple what you've really done is put more movement energy into the apple than is necessary for it to only move slightly and then stop.

in space without friction from gravity, air, or anything else, momentum is carried further. maybe what confuses you isn't inertia but the fact that some systems have a lower state of entropy than what is otherwise conventional. Yes our universe conserves vectors of motion if there isn't an adequate resistance in the way, but all atoms have a half life and as such eventually self resistance will become a thing for an object moving through empty space forever

>>14961959
this perspective babble is relativistic bullshit and unscientific

>Why? Nothing is keeping the apple there -
Something is keeping the apple there. It is made of atoms, atoms behavior is to orbit/attract around each other, this causes stability and causes it to remain still in space, just rotating around their orbits, rather than go left/right/up/down

So being still IS the expected result of how atoms work.
Flicking an atom and suddenly it moves forever to the left, for no reason, is nonsense.

Atoms move forever to the left once flicked, because they are interacting with something else, they displaced something else, and that displacement of this something else is causing a chain reaction of pulling the apple to the left and continuously displacing more of this something else, forever, until it reaches a point these something else does not exist, then it would stop dead in its track

>>14961976
Regardless of acceleration, if something has speed something has to be actively, in that moment, causing that speed.

Otherwise the speed should go back to zero immediately

What you call acceleration, is merely some other atoms pushing/bumping into the object being displaced.

What you are calling speed, instead of saying just how fast the thing is being displaced, you are calling it some witchcraft mumbo jump of once an object has been displaced it will maintain the speed it was last displaced at forever, because just because.

That's just crap. If something maintains its speed, that is because something is actively causing it. Inertia is a myth

>>14961992

>Yes our universe conserves vectors of motion if there isn't an adequate resistance in the way


It conserves how? That is what I am talking about

It probably conserves because when something is displaced into the universe, its interacting with some sort of particle we don't understand yet, these particles cause a chain reaction to maintain that vector of motion.

It doesn't conserve for no reason, something can't be displaced in space unless something else is pushing against it

>>14961988
Newtons first law my dude.
If there is no force acting on a still object that shit stays still.
If there is no force acting on a moving object that shit stays moving.
The object itself doesn't need more energy to keep moving *at the same speed*, it only needs energy to change from one speed to another.
There is no energy spent on mantaining velocity, therefore, an object can mantain it's velocity indefinitely

>>14962007
>If there is no force acting on a moving object that shit stays moving.
>There is no energy spent on mantaining velocity

Why? How can maintain velocity be energy free? A constant force is displacing atoms outside of their orbit, forever, and that seems like an ok concept to you?

To me its more logical that something is actively causing those atoms to maintain their velocity, something that is outside the atoms/their mass themselves, its a system the atoms are interacting with that we have not detected yet

>>14961931
Time is real, because we experience it. If you don't like it go to some other set of dimensions. I recommend 2d.

>>14961873
>bus breaks
>breaks

>>14962023
>2D
>realm of waifus

Absolutely would

>>14962014
My dude, atoms dont orbit, electrons do.
And when you apply a force and make something move you arent necessarily separating electrons from the atom, you are moving the whole thing. The object doesn't lose atomic stability for moving because movement is arbitrary to your point of reference.

>>14962014
Since there's no privileged frame of reference, needing energy to maintain velocity in a vacuum would mean things also need energy to sit still in a vacuum, since the velocity of any object depends on the frame of reference from which it's measured and can't objectively be held to be any particular value, and being in constant motion and being at rest are actually physically the same phenomenon.

>>14962029
>reference/relativeposting

omg fags

That is just mumbo jumbo, it is not real

>things also need energy to sit still in a vacuum
No they don't, they sit still because atoms orbiting is a system that has stability, they orbit around similar patterns which causes the object as a whole (its atoms) to not be displaced outside of that orbit

It is the expected outcome of how atoms behave that it causes macroscopic objects to be still. It is the nature of the system

>>14962048
>That is just mumbo jumbo, it is not real
Literally proven

>>14962023
It's not a physical observable object though, it's just a name we've given to describe the passage of time.

>>14961873
There's a connection between your apple and your hand, the apple 'knows' you pushed it, that's why it keeps moving.

>>14962160
>the apple 'knows' you pushed it, that's why it keeps moving.

>>14961994
>Flicking an atom and suddenly it moves forever to the left, for no reason, is nonsense.
Do you read what you post? Fucking dipshit you are.

>>14961873
the point is that "movement" is undefined except in relation to something else
think about it: in an infinite void with just an apple in it, how could you ever tell whether or not it's moving or not?
you can't
thus what we call "inertia" is just an object being at rest in its own frame of reference
nothing actually ever moves from its own frame of reference
in fact, you know that to be true from your own experience: wherever you go, there you are
in reality you're not actually going anywhere, that's ultimately just a construction of your own mind, you are essentially remaining in the same place while everything is revolving around you in a hyperdimensional space, which works in such a manner that the same is true for absolutely everything
it's the archetypical circle whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere

>>14961873
doesn't make much sense to me either it makes more sense to me to imagine jumping resulting in the same thing that happens on a tram in hl1

>>14961873
They don't want you to know, but you can go to the park and get Free CUNNE.

>>14961958
>physically, there is no difference between an object perfectly still and an object going at a constant speed
lolwut?
An airplane sitting in a locked hangar will not suddenly start flying.

>>14962167
why the troll face?

>>14962225
>An airplane sitting in a locked hangar will not suddenly start flying.
relative to a static observer it's still moving along with earth but according to what anon's saying there cannot be a static observer

>>14961873
How do you think light keeps moving? Should it stop?

>>14961954
So does it require any energy to move through the "pink dots"?
In your example, if you threw an apple through space, will it perpetually keep going at the same speed, or will it "slow/stop"- similar to throwing a ball on Earth does not endlessly travel-?

>>14961965
Interesting, are you the anon who made the thread about Turbulence with the picture of a candle and its shadow?

>>14962232
and relative to a frame with Sol at rest, the plane in the hangar is moving at a whopping speed of 30 kilometers per second
and relative to a frame with the center of the Milky Way at rest, the plane in the hangar is moving at 200 kilometers per second
OP apparently struggles to understand that the motion of an object can only be measured with respect to other objects

>>14961873
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

>>14961991
Well, maybe our understanding of moving bodies and gravity isn't as accurate as believed to be?

>>14962213
>in reality you're not actually going anywhere, that's ultimately just a construction of your own mind
Anon, I promise you that things move to different places.

>>14962232
>relative to a static observer it's still moving along with earth
Ok, except I'm talking about the airplane hangar being the stationary, static observer. I'm not talking about some theoretical particle somewhere in the universe.

>>14962264
>Anon, I promise you that things move to different places.
they really don't, that's the neat thing about reality
ask yourself this: have you ever been anywhere other than right where you are?
your mind makes it seem like you're the one moving around in a great big world, but in reality you're always right there wherever you "go", it's your surroundings that are constantly changing and moving
like I said, it's one huge interlocked hyperdimensional space where everything is perfectly revolving around everything else in such a manner that for any given object, everything is revolving around it while it remains perfectly at rest

>>14962235
Yes, it should stop.

Things can't move unless something is causing the displacement, and that requires another moving object.

Photons are part of a system where they are able to interact in that system in a way that keeps them moving forward. Remove that system and they should stop, photons don't move "just because"

>>14962371
They're a wave that moves through the aether.

>>14962236
>are you the anon who made the thread about Turbulence with the picture of a candle and its shadow?

nope


>So does it require any energy to move through the "pink dots"?
yes, but much like gravity is continuous, the pink dots act continuously in a chain reaction moving the apple forever if there are no obstacles to slow it down.

Somehow gravity and inertia are continuous systems by their own rules, and my bet is that gravity and inertia are the same thing or very similar systems that share similar elements from nature, rather than distinct systems

>>14962001
>Otherwise the speed should go back to zero immediately
What would cause that to happen?

>>14962378
Because there is nothing else displacing the atoms/macroscopic object

Once displacement stops the object stops too. The notion that once displaced towards a vector, the object will continue moving towards that vector forever just because, is just wrong. Newton was wrong when he said objects have a resistance to change their velocity

What is actually happening is that space is not empty, there are things in space that get displaced themselves when atoms bump into them, that sets a chain reaction, and in the interaction of atoms and these things, the atoms keep being pulled towards that vector continuously

Something like this is a lot more plausible than "I turned the go left switch on, for these atoms. Now they'll just keep moving left forever because"

The concept of inertia was a mistake, it does not exist

>>14962376
Ok.. i think you can get zinc from smoking cigarettes?

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

>>14962384
Interesting
picunrel

>>14962384
>Once displacement stops the object stops too
you're asserting this like it's a fact but what are you basing it on?

>>14961873
The apple is already in motion, you're just shifting it 'forward.' Makes perfect sense.
If inertia wasn't real then nothing could exist because nothing could make way or waves for the propogation and movement of anything else. Not even a single atom or anything smaller but equivalent in principle.

Surely anything also imparts 'charge' onto another. Imagine if whatever constitutes a thing (say, atoms) have 'directions' of rotation or spin which determine their vibration pattern, which then determine how they move.
Imagine a ball that when bouncing on concrete has it's vibration kind of going in a loop determined by the intitial force and then the force being eroded away by both the balls bouncy quality (the quality of it's atoms or whatever) and the 'force of gravity' which is kind of bending the charge like light on a curved mirror and forcing the ball to fall back downwards.
But if you were in space, and you touched the ball, you would impart your directional 'charge' onto the ball that would send the ball moving in whatever direction determined by the vibrations direction, which is the value of the charge.
If charge didn't exist then no kind of energy could exist and nothing would make contact with anything else in the first place, meaning nothing could move, which means there's no way it could even come into existence.

You humans can not comprehend an "atom only" model of reality. It's not abstracted enough.

Imagine a human throwing a baseball, but everything involved is just atoms. The environment is atoms, the ball is atoms, the space between, the human, etc... all atoms. Each a multivariate data point in your model. Even the arm swinging and the ball moving through this "atom only" model of reality is incalculable to your brains and computer systems that you brains can imagine.

Humans are gay.

>>14961885
>We are probably a simulation and this is the first evidence of a bug in it.
It's evidence of you being a fucking idiot who can't understand the point you're trying to make. Inertia is an abstraction of the tendencies atoms tend to have when being affected by outside forces. It isn't perfect, it's an abstraction. Simulations have inertia because it's a generally effective abstraction

>>14962541
You don't even know how to model an atom. I bet you think they're weird little planetary orbits of electrons around a ball of protons and neutrons.

>>14962580

That's the equivalent of "u is stoopid"

>>14961873
you hand atoms never actually touch the apple atoms

>>14961873
There is no force, there's just displacement relative to the objects.
Consider if you moved an apple within a complete void, only your hand/body exists and the apple. Once you have moved it and it continues moving you cannot state if you are moving from the apple, it from you, or both from each other. Nor is there absolutely any observation you can make to figure out which scenario it is in reality. The reason you can't figure it out is because things don't carry this inherent inertia energy which propels them. Things are rather displaced, any effect within reality essentially causes a ripple which everything rides on and continues.

>>14961873
you are made of the same stuff as light. if you start it moving it distorts very slightly (elongates) in the direction of travel. As the speed of light is constant in a given inertial frame you do not notice this. Now you are like a spring that has been charged/stretched. get it now?

>>14961930
>"it just does it, lol"
that's bullshit my friend.

>>14962129
Is pussy also not real because you've never seen any?

>>14962651
Yes, and? You are stupid.

>>14961873
listen up. Drop all the bullshit definitions and try to understand it in simple terms.

Thing moves or it doesn't. Things that move were moved.

Movement is caused by force

Things are made of force. When you push one thing against another, each will exert force on either.

>>14962950
>When you push one thing against another, each will exert force on either.

And when you stop pushing one thing against another... there is no longer force being exerted.

Yet, the thing keeps moving forever. This is illogical, the only explanation that is logical, is that once moved, there is a different system (other types of particles that are not atoms) that continuously pull on that thing that was moved, and causes what we call "inertia"

>>14962384
>Once displacement stops the object stops too
How do you throw things?

>>14962399
no
look at the animation
everything only appears to move from every object's vantage point, despite every object being at rest
that's the beauty of higher-dimensional spaces, like the hyperspatial reality we inhabit

>>14962580
the irony is that they actually are precisely that, they're just moving so fast that they appear smeared out
if you could model the Solar system over long enough scales of time, you'd see the exact same thing happening there, the notion that planetary orbits are relatively stable is completely delusional, just as Velikovsky adequately demonstrated

>>14963037
you've already gotten your misconception explained to you here: >>14962213
read it carefully over and over again until you get it, and stop trolling

>>14963117
what do I need to look up to find out what is going on from a programming/mathematical level?
Because it looks like it has moving parameters.
>everything only appears to move from every object's vantage point, despite every object being at rest
I'd say it would look like everything is stationary, if you're observing the other points from each point.
Because if they're all rotating at the same speed, then it looks still.

>>14961873
>The idea of "things just keep moving once displaced because why not lol" is insane
To be honest, that's a silly perspective.
A world in which the inertia that you describe is the only thing people have ever known. There's no base from which you can judge that it should be different.
I think the thing that happened here is that you internalized a notion of force (a 16th century concept) and it has been explained to you in a way that made you conclude that a body to which no force is applied would have no relative motion.
The only thing you have to know is to unlearn the misconception that was given to you by a half-assed understanding of force.

Force equals change of change-of-position. Force does not equal change-of position.

>>14963195
To be explicit:

[math] \tfrac{1}{m}F = \frac{d}{dt} \left( \frac{d}{dt} x \right) [/math]

>>14963203
To be more explicit:

[math] F=0 \implies \frac{d}{dt}x = 0 [/math]

>>14963203 (You)
To be more explicit:

[math] F=0 \implies \frac{d}{dt}x = const [/math]

>>14963083
you don't if space was actually empty, without the particles that create what we call inertia

The object would just stop once let go

>>14963130
movement is real, not "in relation to an observer", shut up

What is this, ancient greece with people saying movement is not real?

>>14961873
based philosopher angrily proclaiming how the universe SHOULD ACT

itt: science cucks who cannot reason for themselves and adapt their theory to observable phenomena in the universe

Who is the more evolved consciousness?

>>14961873
>>My hand (a bunch of atoms)
stopped reading right there

>>14962760

Anybody can go read about it, like you did.

>>14961873
inertia is when an object of high kinetic energy slows down and loses energy. The only known mechanism for losing energy is through photon radiation, so for an object to slow to a stop, it has to first radiate heat.

This can take a long time, since various quantum factors must determine whether the emission of a photon is allowed or forbidden, in accordance to the laws of quantum mechanics.

>>14961873
Accleration and velocity are two seperate things. If you throw a ball in the air, you give it a net force up, which changes the acceleration and therefore the velocity (Newton's second law). The entire time the ball is going up, it has a net force down from gravity until its velocity becomes negative, at which point the ball falls down at increasing speed until it hits the ground. You could continue this for the ball's bounces, but I think you get the picture. Forces only indirectly affect velocity by changing acceleration.

>>14963127
The Structured Atom Model disproves the orbital theory of the nucleus.

>>14961873
wow, it's almost like science is a field that relies on induction and can't ever definitely tell you the deep, ontological mechanism that conducts our observations.

welcome to terror, my friend. get cool with nihilism or stfu.

>>14963943
Why are quarters still in my piggy bank after I finished putting them all in there?
>exactly the questions science can't answer

>>14963960
why is the speed of light the value that it is? why is the gravitational constant the value that it is? why is the universe expanding? what caused the big bang? why do fundamental particles behave as waves? why are there X number of particles instead of Y?

all questions unanswerable by empirical, inductive inquiry. even if the (unknowable) answers are consistent with a materialist conception of the universe, we will never have certainty. terror.

>>14963970

Not my problem.

>>14963970
It's one thing not being able to know, but another to also know it's complete bullshit, for instance true randomness in quantum theory, is a function which is 100% impossible to describe fully with mathematics and logic. Such thing simply can't exist, yet it "just does" and that's BS.

>>14961976

striaght line motion eqn under accelleration
[math]
S = u.t + 0.5 a t ^2
[/math]

differentiate to get V
[math]
DS/dt = V = a.t
[/math]

[math]
V = a.t
[/math]

[math]
a = V/t
[/math]

so you see V was in f=ma all the time!

There yah go

wrt time then u get v

>>14962384
>>14962001
You do understand why some people (you) have the idea that for something to move there needs to be a force exerted unto it? It is because that holds true for stuff on earth were due to drag constant velocity means something is constantly giving energy. P = F*u.

This is such a basic component of the human experience. Nowhere on earth you can push something and it will keep going forever.

It is proven tho, that when no force is exerted the object will remain either stationary or moving at a constant speed.

Physics says that moving at a constant speed is the same as being stationary. This is the simplest assumption we can make.

There is no reason for us to say, for example, that there are some particles that keep on pushing the object, if we accept that constant speed is the same thing as being stationary.

But because you obviously didn't finish highschool, it is natural to believe that movement = force/energy, because that's what we know from our everyday experience.

We both agree that when there is no drag or friction stuff will move forever. Only difference between everyone that knows basic physics and you is that educated people accept that the simplest explanation must be constant speed=being still, while you have to make up convoluted and unnecessary explanations in order to fit a fundamental law of nature into your limited experience.

I am not insulting you because you don't know this. Even tho this is basic.

I think you are a basedass because while it is obvious you have never stepped in a physics class, you somehow think that you can asnwer OP question. The way you respond to that anon that knows what's he talking about proves you don't know shit.

>Muh laws need to conform to the human everyday experience.

The existence of magnets proves that wrong kek.

I hate /sci/ so much. Wholeass physics thread and there is only one anon
>>14961958
that knows physics.

>relativistic bullshit
yeah sure smartass

>>14963998
What are you on about?

The universe does whatever it does. We make models to try to predict what things are going to do. Sometimes they only have predictive power across a limited domain, like classical mechanics, and need to be expanded upon, but they're still close enough to be useful in the original limited domain

There's an entire field of study trying to make more sense out of quantum randomness with proposals like supersymmetry, many worlds, etc.

Whether there's any way to ever really figure that out given what's possible to observe, the current models are still useful for predicting observations with some quantifiable degree of certainty and always will be

You can't directly measure a wave function o or give it an intuitive physical meaning at the moment, but you can mathematically model it in a way that accurately predicts how observables change, so something is physically acting in a way that at least has the net effect of a wave function, even if no one fully understands what that is

>>14964103
Bruh.

a=V/t is wrong. It's a=dV/dt.

All high school textbooks that say a=V/t assume that by V everyone understands dV.
Imagine that a car is moving constantly at 5m/s.
At t=0 it starts to accelerate by 1m/s^2.
At t = 2 it stops accelerating.

According to your formula V = a*t
V = 1*2 = 2

While obviously it's V = 7

Your formula assumes that the car was immobile prior to acceleration. When that is the case the change in velocity is equal to the velocity. This is only a special case. Force has nothing to do with velocity. Only with the change or rate of change of velocity.

Constant speed => dV = 0 => dV/dt = 0 =>
a = 0

which means F = 0

V is not in F=ma. There is just its rate of change.

>>14964162
reddit popsci people think that physics is supposed to explain the universe or something kek. They don't understand the sentence
>models to try to predict what things are going to do

>>14964148
>Physics says that moving at a constant speed is the same as being stationary. This is the simplest assumption we can make.


The simplest assumption we can make, is that there is a force out there that is the same thing that causes gravity, that also cause what we describe as inertia.

Your "simplest assumption" is just insane 2deep logic. Something with a speed is not stationary, ti is moving, and it is moving because something else is upsetting the balance of this moving system. Something that also causes gravity most likely, which is the same kind of event than inertia but with a different pull direction

>>14964191
Why would something need a force to move. Tell me. If I push a ball in space I give it energy. It will have that energy forever. It has energy. If it stopped moving on its own where would that energy go?

You are assuming that movement requires a force. I assume that constant speed=being still.

We both make baseless assumptions because that is what scientists and philosophers do, there is nothing wrong with that.

Only difference is that your assumption is rooted in the fact that our own daily experience makes us equate speed with force. Also why do you assume that the natural state of being is being still? You equate balance with being stationary.

My assumption is rooted in the fact that it is the simplest assumption. No force, no change in state. Force = boom acceleration.

>Something that also causes gravity most likely, which is the same kind of event than inertia but with a different pull direction

This is so complicated.

As a side note the biggest problem with everything you said is that your so called "force" is not really a force at all. By definition a force is an action that causes acceleration. Your deus ex machina doesn't have anything acting against it in let's say the vacuum. That means that if your "force" really was a force nothing would move at a constant speed but rather everything would be accelerating.

Again this is an entirely new concept you have to define and ironically enough since your "force" is not really a force someone could just say that it is *just* inertia.

>>14964234
>If I push a ball in space I give it energy. It will have that energy forever. It has energy

Define energy and you'll see your flawed thinking.

Atoms have forces that cause them to stabilize in an orbit and stay there. That is how the system of nature works. For you to cause an atom to move to any direction outside of that orbit, you need to introduce something else to break the stability of that system.

When you give sometrhing "energy", you are doing something to unbalance a system which the most natural assumption is that it will go back to a stability, even if that stability means objects moving in permanent orbits (as what happens to atoms amongst themselves and the parts that constitute the atom), or that happens with gravity

If inertia exists, it is because a moving atom gets trapped in some other system of particles that cause its continuous motion. The parts of the atom are continuously interacting with another unbalances system, and from that we have the motion we call inertia

The problem with what you are saying is that you are using energy as a baseless concept

>>14964234
>That means that if your "force" really was a force nothing would move at a constant speed but rather everything would be accelerating


Not if you assume that once that force is gone, an object comes to a complete stop, and that inertia as we imagine is not real.

That means this force is constantly accelerating the atoms that are coming to a stop, and this force is constant because space is not empty but filled with the particles that cause inertia, which again, I bet are the same kinds of particles that under different circumstances create gravity

Nobody has ever even proved that inertia exists. It's the dark matter of the 1600s

>>14961873
The force increased their speed. You need more force to slow them down again. That's inertia, that's all it is

>>14964241
>permanent orbits (as what happens to atoms amongst themselves and the parts that constitute the atom)

Lulwut

Atoms absolutely do not do this. You're probably taking the term "orbital" way too literally

>>14964241
Energy IS an abstract concept. Baseless if you will.

An object that is moving at a constant speed doesn't need to have more energy given to it to keep moving.
Idk why you keep talking about atoms or whatever.

>If inertia exists, it is because a moving atom gets trapped in some other system of particles that cause its continuous motion. The parts of the atom are continuously interacting with another unbalances system, and from that we have the motion we call inertia

Again my answer to the problem is simpler. Your answer makes more assumptions than mine. Your assumption makes more assumptions than my assumption.

An object in motion will remain in motion. Period.

Also you keep confusing atoms with electrons and stability with speed=0.

>14964245

I push ONCE a ball in the vacuum.
It keeps moving at a constant speed(We know that has been proven).
Assume you are right and there is a a force acting on the object.
F=/=0
m*a=/=0
a=/=0
There is acceleration.
Your explanation is that the atoms(pls stop saying atoms just say object) are constantly coming to stop. That means that they always have an opposite infinite acceleration(infinite because you say that the object stops immediately) that becomes zero once the atoms/object reaches zero velocity(this actually assumes a third force kek which in turn requires a fourth force and so on). Acceleration assumes force, infinite acceleration with finite mass assumes infinite force.

Boom suddenly you have 2 forces.

Whatever you are talking about is by definition not a force.

>>14964241

Also, astronomical objects that are in stable orbits are still just traveling in straight lines forever from their perspective. Those lines are just bent into complete loops by gravity

From the outside, a centripetal force from gravity appears to continually accelerate them in a circular path. Any change in directions required a force, which in this case comes from gravity. Otherwise they would juet fly off in straight lines

The way orbits work completely relies on how inertia works

>>14964315
he is obviously talking about electrons but let's say that his knowledge in chemistry is on par with his classical mechanics skills

>>14964292
>Nobody has ever even proved that inertia exists. It's the dark matter of the 1600s

Quit wearing your seatbelt and maybe you'll get a chance to prove everyone wrong

>>14964325
I hate /sci/ so much. People here are the definition of a popsci redditor that is confident af in his abilities to disprove every established law in physics. Cork sniffers fr fr

>>14964241
Define energy and you'll see your flawed thinking.

E^2 = (p^2)(c^2) + (m^2)(c^4)

P is momentum. It's in the definition.

Momentum is also relative. It's just as valid for me to say I'm standing still and you're flying past me as it is for you to say you're standing still

That's why your argument doesn't make any sense, because there is no way to say which of us is still and which is moving

>>14961873
Energy is conserved, when there's no resistance for an object already in motion it will continue to move until something else changes its momentum, on earth these things include friction from air resistance and other objects

>>14963970
The speed of light is the value it is because of the arbitrary nature of our measuring systems. there may be a constant that defines the workings of our universe and that number is 42.

>>14964345
It's also a property of the system of two objects moving relative to each other.

Each one sees itself as standing still and the other moving and having the kinetic energy. It doesn't really "belong" to either of them.

There's just no such thing as absolute motion. If you saw something moving with constant velocity and decided something had to be pushing it, the object would see every thing else moving at constant velocity and have to conclude that somethint was pushing all of that

>>14964351
A lot of theoretical physics just sets it and other constants to 1 while working out certain equations because they're really just scaling factors that don't tell you anything about the relationships between what you're interested in

>>14964359
Like with E=mc^2, it's equally valid to just say E=m in some sort of units, and they have a linear relationship

>>14964359
Do they do that because they don't care about the precise relation and they only want to know that this affects that?

>>14964359
Wait isn't E=mc^2 linear to? kek

>>14964325
When I get hurled through my windshield, it isn't because of "inertia", it's because of the force of my car crash displaces me forward

>>14962753
Physicists still haven't detected a quantum of pussy

>>14964368
C is constant. It doesn't change. C^2 is still a constant. So the linear relationship is really only between E and m there

C^2 is just a scaling factor. If you wrote it in mph, then the value for E would have some scaling factor in mi^2/hr^2 but you haven't really changed it's actual value, you're just scaling it into different units

>>14964386
The crash is pushing your vehicle backwards. How does that push you forward?

>>14962048
How do you know when something is staying still? If it's not moving compared to something? How do you know that something is staying still too?

>>14964390
I can just make up units, say A for distance and B for time, where 1 A per B equals the speed of light in a vacuum.

E will then have A^2/B^2 units in it, but I havent really changed anything about how it's calculated

>>14964392
It's completely relative. Absolute still isn't a thing either. If two objects are moving relative to each other, either one could declare it's the one that is still and the other is moving, or that they're both moving at part of the relative speed

As long as you account for whatever assumption youre making when working it out, you'll get an answer that describes what's actually happening

It's just a lot easier to work out when you declare yourself the one at rest

>>14964386
This is the dumbest reply in this thread by far and that quite the achievment considering the fact that people confuse atoms with electrons and don't know what a force is kek.

Inertia is what explains why even tho the car is not touching you and nothing is exerting a force on you(let's assume no air drag) (your fatass is flying outta the windshield) you are in motion.

>>14964103
Bruh, that formula (a=v/t) checks out on units but not in concept, that implies that body moving at constant velocity has a positive acceleration which is by definition impossible.

As another anon pointed out, this is due to doing that weird move of taking differentials for calculating 'v' but not for calculating 'a'

>>14964409
I think part of the problem comes from not understanding that you can model things is different ways that are equally valid but they have to be internally consistent with reality.

If I toss a ball on a plane going 300 mph, it falls back in my hand rather than flying backwards at 300 mph and tearing a hole in the fuselage.

You could say the ball and I are in the same inertial reference frame as far as the forward velocity is concerned, so there's nothing acting on it in the direction of the plane, or you could say I'm traveling at 300 mph relative to the ground, so when I toss it, I'm also tossing it forward at 300 mph

You can work out the math that way and come to the same conclusion, but if you keep digging into it, inertial is still going to crop up somewhere. You can't ever talk your way out of reality

>>14964422
I think he probably understood what he was doing conceptually but didn't notate it correctly, but this correction is kind of doing the same thing

Acceleration is the change in velocity over time by definition.

a = dv/dt

The correction implies da = dv/dt unless I'm reading it wrong, which also isn't right

>>14961896
>It comes from the expansion of spacetime
You might as well say God does it

>>14964448
God was always kind of stingy on the models and data backing up his claims

>>14961873
Moving without stopping is the inverse of stopping without moving: nothing has to continually act on an object for it to remain in either of those states.
Do you also get confused over the idea that objects will stay in the same place for eternity if nothing acts on them?

>>14961873
>If the bus guy jumps, he should immediately freeze in the air, he should not move forward with inertia forever, because the bus nor anything else is no longer displacing him.
You've seriously never been in a moving vehicle in your life?

>>14964391
The crash is like an explosion, everything goes out from the center

>>14964391
You are moving forward, not connected to your vehicle, when your vehicle crashed you continue to move forward until you crash as well.

>>14961873
>reinventing the wheel
Retard thread

>>14964162
Have you ever questioned if what it is doing is reasonable?
True randomness is not reasonable because it can not be described fully with a mathematical function. Because it's illogical for true randomness to exist.
For the n-body problem, an absurd amount of interactions has to be evaluated somehow, again this is not reasonable to just happen by itself. I call BS on what the universe is doing.

>>14961873
look at the apple as a battery, you charged it by displacing it and it discharges when it hits something.
the same can be observed in flywheels.

>d00dz1 like what if movement and rest......................are like the same LOL

This is what Materialists actually believe.

>>14965000
>liek ummmmmmmm it all dependz on who is lookin LOL

>>14965007

Relativism, be it physical or moral, was a mistake

>>14965224
>Relativism, be it physical or moral, was a mistake
most forms of relativism are pseudo-science and 100% jewish

>>14961885
>I'm just gonna say it: inertia does not exist
correct
>rest of your post
incorrect

>>14961992
>entropy
Doesn't exist.

>>14961885
Atoms don't exist either retard. Place is a lot more tangible than atom. Both are contrivances.

>>14965784
>>14965224
>>14965007
>>14965000

I wonder how strong is your understanding of trigonometry.

Relativism deadass works irl and has been proven.
Literal cork sniffers topkek

>>14964446
I am the one who pointed out the weird thing with the "d"s . Could you elaborate on how the correction implies that da = dv/dt ?

>>14965007
>>14965224
>>14965784
If relativism is false, why does it feel like you are still while you sit on a train? The only way to tell a train is moving at constant velocity or is at rest is to look out the window

>>14966053
You answered yourself: feelings

The truth is that I'm moving, not still, while on the train. The fact my feelings can't perceive that have no relationship to objective truth.

I am moving my position, period. Relativism is pseudo-science as anon said

>>14966060
By this perspective you are moving at all times due to the rotation of the earth
Why doesn't this change in position effect anything? There is no experiment you can perform to determine if you are moving at a constant velocity or at rest without using a outside reference point

>>14966065
So the Earth is flat and motionless because it's impossible to experimentally prove otherwise?

>>14966071
It was proven using outside reference points like stars and planets.

>>14966083
There you go. It is moving, you just can't "feel" it. Wasn't it easy when you thought it through a little bit?

>>14966087
It is moving relative to other things. In our reference point it is not moving. The only reason we can say it is moving is because we used other objects as a reference point

>>14966065

>There is no experiment you can perform to determine if you are moving at a constant velocity or at rest without using a outside reference point

If we can't look at the atoms or something and extract that information, then we can do it eventually. Doesn't mean velocity is only relative to an observer, it is not. It is an intrinsic part of the atoms that are moving

>>14966093
You can prove motion relative to the light field or other fields. Replications of Michelson showed that Earth is moving at a consistent rate when aether is measured in the open and at height.

>>14964446
Differentials divided by differentials dont result in another differential, they "cancel" eachother in the form of a derivative

>>14963182
Redshifted light isn't slowed down, it's just vibrated more slowly. Its impossible to escape a light beam

>>14961873
Think of movement as a progressive change of spatial location in relation to time. Some of your atoms push some atoms in the apple, which push other atoms, which then push other atoms, etc. Once your hand stops touching any apple atoms, the atoms closer to your hand stop moving, which cause the next atoms to stop, which then cases other atoms to stop, but this process takes time. Add this to the fact that atoms are not static, they're always moving, being attracted by each other, which leads to what we perceive as movement.

>>14967497
your mom vibrates more slowly.

>>14961873
>What causes that continuous, eternal motion?
nothing? non-change doesn't need to be caused, change is what needs a cause

>>14966071
False, you can prove the earth is turning with a pendulum.

>>14966483
There is no such thing as "relative to the light field or other fields".

>>14966472
you using the word atoms shows you don't have an idea about what you are talking about. Current physics states that motion is relative. If it's proven otherwise when new physics drop then you can talk.

You can take your philosophical bs somewhere else.
>It is an intrinsic part of the atoms that are moving

>then we can do it eventually

You just say shit without supporting it with anything. It's good to question current science but just saying it's wrong without argumenting is dumb af

>>14968007
There experimentally is an aether and it is moving.

>>14969199
No aether has ever been detected by any experiment.

>>14961873
A better question OP: what moves your hand?
>muuh metabolized eenergy or whatever
Yeah thats the fuel, but what moves it? What causes motion to happen? Remember that to that energy be metabolized your whole body need to move in lots of ways, each cell moving to break those chemical bonds from food and release energy and whatever. What makes anything move? If you dont understand motion first, you cant understand inertia

>>14969941
Consciousness.
>>14969199
Or we and all known matter and energy are moving relative to it.