/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8195017
>I make a thread about the same concept as that gif
>Talk about the nature of motion and location
>Talk about the potential for an object that's stationary from all reference frames
>Everyone complains and claims I must be brain damaged

No matter what you think about anything more granular, the universe itself is inarguably the stationary object.

not /sci/duck
but /sci/ama

>>8195017
I dont think that gif depicts the inclination of our solar system accurately.

>>8195021
>Everyone complains and claims I must be brain damaged
Maybe because you talked about "stationary objects" on a scale that big

>>8195061
Finite state machine.

>>8195021
If the object wasn't moving at the speed of light, then a reference frame with a different velocity must have the object moving at a different velocity, so the object must be moving at the speed of light. Since we need the object to be stationary, we need a (shit) universe where c=0. In this case, everything (like you said, the whole universe) would be stationary in all reference frames.

>>8195095
I mean the universe as a whole, in the same way you talk about a cardboard box as a whole. Not everything in the universe, just the universe itself.

I don't think objects are actually moving at different velocities from different reference frames, they're just experiencing time differently. Apparent relative rate of change must be derived from some underlying wave-like mechanic.

>>8195109
Seems to me you are gladly accepting the time part of special relativity while pointlessly dismissing the space part of it

>>8195131
I think space is probably in some way quantized, and this is what we consider location. The universe does not allow existence in an infinite number of places two arbitrary points, there are finite positions. If quantum field theory is correct, I bet the energy state of a given at a given position is quantized as well.

This is what "motion" is. A change in the energy gradient distributed along any given cluster of cells. Directionality naturally follows with multiple spatial dimensions.

>>8195140
Max Planck, is that you? Next time try timetravelling into the past. Your thoughts dont sound that new and impressive around here

>>8195021
>potential for an object that's stationary from all reference frames
That's just not possible. Pick two reference frames that are in motion relative to each other.
Any object stationary relative to one MUST be in motion relative to the other.

>the universe itself is inarguably the stationary object.
Apparently you don't know the definition of "inarguably".
But in this sentence at least, you do have a lot in common with most of /sci/.
Many people here love to cling to classical mechanics.
And while most of them are better at it than you are, they're still ultimately just as wrong.

>>8195155
>Any object stationary relative to one MUST be in motion relative to the other.
These two objects are omniscient and are judging their speed via their change in location, and direction, relative to the universe as a whole. ie, the universe as if it were a box with some bent around lattices in it.

>Apparently you don't know the definition of "inarguably".
My definition of inarguably is that it is seemingly impossible to create a valid argument, from my perspective. Any other definition renders the word useless.

>>8195164
>Any other definition renders the word useless
same thing with applying the word "stationary" to the whole universe

>>8195164
>These two objects are omniscient
Any explanation where objects or particles are required to 'know' something is immediately suspect.

>>8195169
The universe as a whole, not the whole universe.

>>8195173
difference?

>>8195172
The universe as a whole is omniscient. It is judging their speed via their change in location, and direction, relative to itself.

>>8195164
>seemingly impossible to create a valid argument, from my perspective
Wow.
Just wow.
You seriously need psychiatric help.

>>8195173
thats meaningless

it is also misleading, since even empty space is expanding

>>8195176
The whole universe is everything in the universe. The universe as a whole is the whole thing, whole universe included.

>>8195178
There is no absolute reference frame where you can say 'relative to the universe as a whole'.

>>8195182
It's supposedly not adding new points, it's just expanding its already existing points.

>>8195187
Then there is no motion, location, or direction. There are no spatial dimensions either.

ITT: Opie tries to hand-wave a century of physics (relativity) away.

>>8195183
>The universe as a whole is the whole thing, whole universe included.
OP, your "whole thing" can be described/observed in an infinite number of frames of reference.

>>8195193
There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.

>>8195189
What are you even trying to say here? "points" as in the geometrical definition?
Either way, we get additional space through expansion. If you call it adding or expanding boils down to semantics. I'm not talking about mass/energy within space, btw

>>8195197
Points as in potential locations. Space is quantized, and there are not infinite positions excitations in an underlying quantum field can occupy. For something to exist in a location, something must allow it to be there. The universe does not afford infinite precision, or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.

>>8195196
>There do not exist infinite frames of reference. The universe does not allow infinite states.
>All of GR is completely wrong. source? because I said so.

Opie please.
You might consider switching to philosophy where there are no objective truths, and anyone can declare themselves a genius.

>>8195192
wew fucking lad

>>8195211
p.s.: Infinite frames of reference does NOT imply infinite states.
You really don't seem to get GR at all.

>>8195211
Infinite frames of reference requires infinite potential states. There are not infinite potential states. The universe is a finite state machine.

The universe itself is quantized. There is 1.

>>8195207
You are pretty much desribing the concept of Planck lengths. I know about this. But where are you going with this?

>>8195218
It does, else there do not exist infinite reference frames to be considered.

>>8195225
There's a difference between space expanding by adding new points, and space expanding by elongating the relationship between existing points without adding new possible positions. It indicates what the machine is doing and how its contents may behave as a result.

>>8195227
>It does, else there do not exist infinite reference frames to be considered.
Reference frames aren't physical objects, and any one configuration of atoms in motion CAN be described in relation to an infinite number of reference frames, and the laws of physics must apply equally in all frames.
If you're going to dismiss GR, please try to understand it first.

>>8195238
There do not exist infinite states, therefore there does not exist a practically purpose for description from infinite reference frames.

>>8195236
there is no difference. if I "elongate the relationship between existing points", I also add new possible positions.
If you blow up a balloon, you just expand its surface, but in the same way you add "new" points on its surface

>>8195242
>There do not exist infinite states,
[citation needed]
We've focused on how you're wrong in relation to GR, but here you're also wrong in relation to QM.

>therefore there does not exist a practically purpose for description from infinite reference frames.
...except for understanding physics which can explain time dilation, gravitational lensing, the color of gold, etc, all of which are observed phenomena.
It really isn't "scientific" to ignore observed data because you have an emotional/OCD need to believe the universe runs like clockwork.
Then which one and only reference frame should we use?
How do we decide which

>>8195244
The balloon's surface is composed of finite points, as it expands they're only moving further (and more sparsely) apart. If the universe elongates the distance between two points, it does not need to do so by adding new ones between them. This leads to an apparent change in distance, despite total possible positions not changing, meaning distance and size are not related to possible positions.

Otherwise the universe adds new positions and distorts existing excitations in an underlying field, distributing their gradient differently. Over time this may change the entity if it is not a relatively stable system.

>>8195258
>Then which one and only reference frame should we use?
>How do we decide which
...reference frame is "better" than all the rest.

(sorry about the botched editing).

>>8195261
>The balloon's surface is composed of finite points,
So now you don't understand GR, QM or geometry.

>>8195242
Ok, give me the reference frame where the universe is stationary and I will always be able to give you one where it is not.

>>8195258
>We've focused on how you're wrong in relation to GR, but here you're also wrong in relation to QM.
There do not exist infinite states. Possible positions are quantized, excitations in the underlying fields are quantized. Therefore the fundamental forces, including gravity, are quantized.

>...except for understanding physics which can explain time dilation, gravitational lensing, the color of gold, etc, all of which are observed phenomena.
Mankind had observed the sun for millennia.

>Then which one and only reference frame should we use?
The ones that can exist at a given point in time. Any other are superfluous.
Any others will not be acknowledged.