[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 23 KB, 500x500, 1673740911378059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15124773 No.15124773 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a mathematical formula that can help me predict lava lamp states?

>> No.15124777

>>15124773
>he still thinks math is real
lol
lmao even

>> No.15124779

>>15124773
E=LSD2

>> No.15124783

>>15124773
We're not going to help you break encryption.

>> No.15124786 [DELETED] 

>>15124773
no, convection isn't understood well enough by science yet to do that
https://www.fastcompany.com/90137157/the-hardest-working-office-design-in-america-encrypts-your-data-with-lava-lamps

>> No.15124921

the powder toy
lava lamp
mind you, this is only for 2D lava lamps, it isn't a 3D simulation
still quite pretty though

>> No.15125872

>>15124773
two-phase navier stokes equation with a buoyancy term/boussinesq approximation

>> No.15126813

science: lava lamps are so random that they cannot be predicted by science even though it works on simple convective principles, thats why lava lamps are a suitable source for random number generator input

also science: we are able to predict what will happen to the Earth's atmosphere hundreds of years in advance.

>> No.15126848

>>15126813
there is a difference between predicting that the bubbles inside the lamp will go up, and predicting how many bubbles will form/what their sizes will be/when exactly they will appear. your atmosphere comparison only requires the first type of prediction.

>> No.15126856

>>15124773
>Is there a mathematical formula that can help me predict lava lamp states?
No. They're chaotic.

>> No.15126858

>>15126848
AGW is fake no matter how hard you cope.

>> No.15126967

>>15126848
this
>>15126858
that very post is a cope because your moronic argument got torn apart

>> No.15127068

>>15126856
is the earth's atmosphere chaotic or can it be predicted accurately centuries in advance?

>> No.15127077

>>15124773
navier stokes, there is a reason a wall of those are used as rng generator by some people

>> No.15127900

>>15126848
>nooo these two things that are exactly the same are actually different
>i can't tell you why, but they just are because i need them to be for the sake of making this argument
>you've got to believe meeeee!!!!!
>please!!!!!!
cringe

>> No.15127913

>>15124773
Yes. [eqn] \text{(you) =faggot}[/eqn]

>> No.15127930

>>15126848
You’re a dope and vindicate every single antivaxxer (unwittingly). Btw, still not taking it!!!!!!!!! Ahahahahahahahaha

>> No.15128299

>>15127068
Is AGW fake or is your false dichotomy retarded? Why not both?

>> No.15128378

>>15127900
By analogy, when sampling from a random variable it is impossible to predict the exact value of the next measurement but it is possible to predict what the expected average outcome is.

>> No.15128380

>>15128378
AGW is fake. Your handlers can't predict climate because they don't understand anything about it.

>> No.15128383

>>15128380
Please stop being retarded.

>> No.15128386

>>15128383
It's a known, documented and confirmed scam. OP's lava lamp argument is a pointless red herring.

>> No.15128389

>>15128386
Why do you even bother with this? Don't you have better things to do? Girls to date? Sports to practice? Videogames to play? What kind of person spends their free time pushing anti-climate change propaganda on a italian bread-baking forum?

>> No.15128392
File: 1.29 MB, 1000x9651, 1672332641382327.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15128392

>>15128389
Your handlers are losing control over the narrative and you're afraid. Maybe the UN should hire another million shills just to be on the safe side.

>> No.15128397

>>15128378
>possible to predict what the expected average outcome is.
so you can predict an expected value, wow, how impressive. anyone and everyone can do that on pretty much every topic and does so habitually, they are often wrong. all you've said is that you can't accurately predict the near future because your near term predictions become falsifiable too quickly. your long term predictions don't have that falsifiability issue, so they don't fall under the umbrella of science. go and put your garbage predictions on the same trash pile with all the others who try to misuse rhetoric as a means to attempt dodging around the demonstrably necessary constraints of the scientific method.

>> No.15128399

>>15128397
I don't even, what?

>> No.15128400

>>15128397
Never seen anyone getting BTFO with such scientific eloquence. You win this thread, sir.

>> No.15128401

>>15128400
If you're gonna samefag make it less obvious.

>> No.15128402

>>15128401
Meds.

>> No.15128403
File: 72 KB, 985x986, 319456b9a5d88e92eab06a8287b11439.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15128403

>>15128402
no u

>> No.15128804

>>15124773
yeah

>> No.15129046

>>15124773
napier strokes

>> No.15129078

The lava lamp is like a double pendulum. Extremey dependent on initial conditions so it will be impossible to predict too far to the future.

>> No.15129083
File: 127 KB, 1088x1105, 1672469079458358.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15129083

>>15126848

>> No.15131012

bump