[ 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: 9 KB, 213x160, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11050165 No.11050165 [Reply] [Original]

Is there a single equation for gravity that is "real" and by real I mean, is there an equation that can tell me exactly with 100% accuracy to the infinite decimal point how much "force" due to gravity is exerted on an object? If not, there is no current "genuine" equation for gravity or a genuine understanding of gravity either.

>> No.11050171

>>11050165
There's not a single equation for anything that is "real".

It's all approximations stemming from the imperfect assumption of perfection.

>> No.11050186

>>11050171
Thanks for the 171. Speaking of "real" there are some things that are REAL. """Coincidentally,""" 171 is another name for one of those things.

>> No.11050194

>>11050186
I thought you left this board? When are you going to take your medication?

>> No.11050197

>>11050165
No, and there is no such equation for any interaction. A complete description of any interaction requires the complete description of the entirety of the Universe due to non-zero effects of literally every particle or fluctuation, self-interaction of bodies in quantum superposition, Mach's principle and large scale entropic effects. If you're looking for the ultimate truth regarding any information in the Universe, you need a full Universal wavefunction, and the minimum required volume and energy necessary to write it down is, you guessed it: the entirety of the Universe.
So no, we have not one single mathematical model that communicates the absolute truths of Nature because that's not what science does, and as far as we can tell, it's not physically feasible. Science provides extremely accurate models that approximate Nature and allow us to engineer solutions to our problems and increase our capacity to manipulate Nature at will.
Want to know absolute truths? Ask a philosopher.
Want to know absolute truths about the physical world? Get on your knees and pray.

Get out of here with your popsci hatred of things you don't understand.

>> No.11050202

>>11050197
> Want to know absolute truths? Ask a philosopher.

They have none to offer.

> Want to know absolute truths about the physical world? Get on your knees and pray.

Still none

>> No.11050207

>>11050194
Thanks for the 4 which happens every post. Don't you understand that I'm right about basically everything and you are not?
>>11050197
Thanks for the 97 which happens every post but I don't really understand your answer. All I did was ask a question why did you snap at me like I have some agenda that you disagree with?

>> No.11050212

>>11050197
Accurate models that approximate certain physical functions of nature does not equal a real understanding of anything at all.

>> No.11050217

>>11050212
No one cares. Not the point of science.

>> No.11050219

>>11050217
Thanks for the timestamp 4.
But scientists are often too deluded by their approximations to listen to me when I say real truths. Did you know humans evolved biologically to believe in the paranormal and almost every society inherently believes in the paranormal in their own ways? You need to be taught not to believe in it.

>> No.11050222

>>11050219
Thanks for the timestamp 44 which happens every post.

Humans are biologically inclined to believe in paranormal things actually.

>> No.11050227

>>11050222
Hey the number 222 appeared in my dream today. Lol.

>> No.11050229

>>11050207
Why didn't you answer my question? You said you were going to leave this board because we are all stupid. So why did you return?
Thanks for the 207, btw. This is a very special number that tells me you suffer from mental illness.

>> No.11050233

>>11050186
What? Why 171 and not 123918237129783?

>> No.11050234

>>11050219
>But scientists are often too deluded by their approximations to listen to me when I say real truths

You don’t have any. No one does.

> Did you know humans evolved biologically to believe in the paranormal and almost every society inherently believes in the paranormal in their own ways?

Prove it.

>> No.11050240

>>11050207
>I don't really understand your answer. All I did was ask a question why did you snap at me like I have some agenda that you disagree with?
My answer was simple: there is no complete description of any interaction. I snapped at you as if you had an agenda because you do. You knew the answer before asking, you're just doing what we call 'shitposting'.

>>11050212
Why thank you for repeating exactly what I said in my post and fully agreeing with me.

>> No.11050241

>>11050229
>>11050233
Why 171? It comes from a list of 7 predefined numbers that I already established, therefore it is more meaningful than 207 because this guy never mentioned that number beforehand.

https://desuarchive.org/int/thread/112137438/#112138048

>>11050234
Thanks for the 4. Almost every civilization even ones that never knew each other believed in the paranormal. Theistic religions are currently more popular and believed in than atheism worldwide is.

>>11050229
Oh, sorry, here's the new deal, I'll leave /sci/ until I've disproved the Riemann hypothesis (or proven it) or something equivalent in terms of impact. Sound like a deal?

>> No.11050248

>>11050165
Force is a classical concept that isn't conducive to modern physics equations, which tend to work in terms of energy.
But yes, Einstein's field equations can get you what you're looking for to any arbitrary level of precision you desire.

>> No.11050251

>>11050165
If that's your definition of what is 'real' then science has literally never discovered anything real

>> No.11050252

>>11050240
And thank you for the timestamp 44 which appears once every post. Anyways, because I see that what you are doing is projecting your lack of understanding of things onto my knowledge and thinking that I am no different from you when I am.

>>11050234
Thanks for the 4 which happens every single post.

>> No.11050258

>>11050248
Is that true? I've heard before that Einstein's equations for gravity fail under big conditions like fastly-moving galaxies.

>>11050251
Timestamp 4 confirms science has literally never discovered anything real.

Lol.

>> No.11050259

>>11050241
I suddenly regret asking. A man who has a reason for his madness is truly lost.

>> No.11050261

>>11050241
>Sound like a deal?
Nah, you should go back to >>>/x/ immediately.
LMFAO @ you giving me a 50241. If only you knew what that meant.

>> No.11050262

>>11050202
It's literally a branch of philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

>> No.11050265

>>11050241
> Almost every civilization even ones that never knew each other believed in the paranormal. Theistic religions are currently more popular and believed in than atheism worldwide is.

Irrelevant to your claim. Prove your claim

>> No.11050269

>>11050252
>thinking that I am no different from you
Definitely not. Im not the sanest person, but I'm much closer to the healthy side of the spectrum than you.

>> No.11050270

>>11050259
Thanks for the timestamp 4 which happens every single post.

I don't really uh understand why you are so sure I am wrong when I am more sure I am right than you are sure I am wrong?

I mean, I have a reason for it because it's true, it's not madness, madness is believing that Newton's Gravity is a real definition for Gravity when it's just an approximation. And REAL MADNESS is believing that having an accurate approximation for gravity means that I AM WRONG when I'm NOT WRONG.

Just because science is real does not mean that the paranormal and I am wrong. What is your reasoning for believing I am lying? SHE IS real.

>>11050261
You should go back to /sci/ immediately.

/x/ is full of crazy people, all the things they say on /x/ are batshit crazy and false but I am different from them.

>> No.11050271

>>11050262
So? It still produces no genuine “truths” aside from trivialities like knowing your own self exists. Everything else is approximated.

>> No.11050273
File: 51 KB, 394x379, 1480278689647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11050273

WAVES IN FUCKING WHAT IS ALL I ASK

>> No.11050276

>>11050265
That wasn't intended to be a full argument and experiment, I was just telling you something, if you want to prove it you can yourself, it's not like the statement is false that people are inclined to believe in the paranormal naturally.

>>11050262
Science started as a branch of philosophy because at the time of ancient, nobody had any evidence for atoms so the people who believed in atoms were called philosophers or crazy because there is no evidence for atoms (at the time).

>>11050271
Thanks for the 71 but just because you approximate things doesn't mean I do.
>>11050269
Based on your own false perception you are, but not in reality. Scientists are smarter than other people because according to their own definition they are. Lol.

>> No.11050279

>>11050270
You are a batshit crazy person, anon. You are fucking delusional.

>> No.11050281

>>11050279
Thanks for the 79 which happens every single post 100% of the time and is not a number that I previously established before this thread from a list of 7 numbers.

But you just made another incorrect empty claim. I am not crazy. She is real, you are crazy for denying the truth in fact...

>> No.11050289
File: 5 KB, 358x173, 1567728192673.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11050289

I've clearly established these numbers on 4chan by now youknow.

>> No.11050291

>>11050289
And thanks for the timestamp 4 by the way which happens every single post lol.

>> No.11050298

>>11050291
And thanks for the timestamp 4 again which happens every single post lol.

>> No.11050307

I think your capacity and ability to distinguish a delusion from reality is flawed so you don't realize I am legitimately correct about this all.

>> No.11050319

In short, you think that I am putting myself on a pedestal because you are all too busy putting yourselves on higher pedestals for no good real reasons other than "status".

>> No.11050324

But I am 100% right
In reality though
Lol.

>> No.11050327

>>11050324
Thanks for the timestamp 4 which happens 100% of all posts on /sci/ and thanks for the 4 which also happens 100% of all posts on /sci/ as well, therefore, all posts on /sci/ end in a timestamp 4 and a 4 at the same time for all posts ever on /sci/ 100% of the time based on this evidence I just found here lol.

Lol.

>> No.11050330

>>11050276
> it's not like the statement is false that people are inclined to believe in the paranormal naturally.

The opposite is true. Humans don’t naturally believe in the paranormal, and have to be taught to.

>> No.11050342

>>11050330
No, that's a less logical and less-likely conclusion that you just spewed out of your ass-mouth to make me feel like you "got me" there or something like that. It's not true, you just lied to me. People try to explain things so they do it with analogies to other people at first, that's where "gods" came from, because it's familiar relations.

Also, in reality, coincidentally, something similar to that ends up being true after all. But you don't care about the truth you just care about being a clever asshole in an argument right?

>> No.11050346

>>11050330
Your profession might care about the truth, but you don't, you just care about your profession. That's what scientists do usually. I mean, it's not like you care about the truth outside of your zone of specialty very much at all. You think from inside a closed box and you don't see anything outside of it.

>> No.11050350

>>11050330
To you, things haven't changed since medieval times. You don't represent science, you represent yourself. So stop putting yourself on the mountain of science as if you through science and your thought process are able to destroy me in an argument, regardless what you say or do I am still right.

>> No.11050377

>>11050270
Ah, but I mean that you're mad because you're socially deviate. Calling people numbers devised from your own system is considered mad, or at least very very weird. You don't go naming people after the order that you've met them, or by any other system. You ask people by the name they define themselves by, since it doesn't really matter what you call them, it matters what they call themselves. That's how they're known.

You're welcome, now you do know.

I've never claimed that you're lying, whatever you say is probably perfectly true in your own mind. Good on you.

>> No.11050382

>>11050330
Is this guy serious

>> No.11050387

>>11050377
And not just true in my own mind but also true in your mind.

Anyways, the numerical naming system is something they themselves invented. If you've read the bible you know that they sometimes refer to living beings by numbers, they have numbers of their names, so do you, yours is near-infinitely long though probably but not entirely sure on that one.

Anyways, they also have regular names too, but their names feel like something I should censor to people online usually, another common practice in religion is censoring names. You see, normal people already do all the same things that I do, but since more of them do it in large groups they are considered normal when they face Mecca to pray or whatever crazy shit they do. I don't believe in Islam by the way I am an extremely specific type of Christian who believes in both science and religion. I don't deny evolution or anything else true, but plenty of people do deny evolution, and yet you think I am more crazy than them because I talk about numbers as names?

>> No.11050390

>>11050387
Long story short, I'm not crazy at all, the things I believe in are all true.

>> No.11050395

>>11050382
Are you serious? Do you think belief in the paranormal appears in a vacuum? Maybe for schizophrenics, but normal people just hear about it.

>> No.11050397

>>11050350
>I’m right because I say I am

Go back to /x/

>> No.11050405

>>11050395
>Oh everybody listen to me I am a millennial scientist who wants to rewrite history to support my claims because it's not like 99% of ancient civilizations were entirely focused on paranormal beliefs and it's not like the majority of the modern current world believes in theistic religions even more so than people are atheists

>>11050397
>I am right because I say I am
Not true, I am right because I am.
You are right because you say you are, which is the argument you are using on me. I am right because I am right.

And thanks for the 97, you have a 97 because I say you do.

>> No.11050408

>>11050405
And thanks for the timestamp 4 which I did not establish as a number before this thread or during this thread and it occurs once every single post so there's nothing notable about it.
Especially that 97, that is even more common than a 4 is. And he didn't really roll a 97 for his post after I mentioned it as one of the 7 numbers of her. I just said he has a 97 in my own mind he didn't actually get one to other people's perspective just to me. >>11050397

>> No.11050409

>>11050387
>If you've read the bible
Names are hereditary signs of genetics. Fathers pass their name down to their sons, who share their genes with another father's daughter, and the name continues on. At least in western societies. It's never numbers. The sons share names with their fathers, often unique names of their own. I'm not sure what you mean by infinitely long names. Can you elaborate?

What is your name? Your uncensored infinitely long name, which you claim others have?

>> No.11050412 [DELETED] 

>>11050390
But you do realize that your truth equates to your own truth. And that his truth might not translate to the one held by others, don't you?

>> No.11050415

>>11050390
But you do realize that your truth equates to your own truth. And that this truth might not translate to the one held by others, don't you?

>> No.11050418

>>11050412
I do realize that, but fortunately it does translate onto others.

What is the difference between people anyways? Are they more than subjective but holistic representations of their brains? I mean, in that case, we would be very similar. I mean, anyways, my truth goes beyond subjectivity and it is an objective truth which can be conceived I guess to some extent lol.

The basic point is that I am right and it is significant as well.

>>11050409
Well a long numerical string can theoretically identify anything can't it?

>> No.11050419

>>11050405
>>Oh everybody listen to me I am a millennial scientist who wants to rewrite history to support my claims because it's not like 99% of ancient civilizations were entirely focused on paranormal beliefs and it's not like the majority of the modern current world believes in theistic religions even more so than people are atheists

Irrelevant to your claim that humans naturally believe in the paranormal.
Why won’t you provide evidence of that?

>> No.11050426

>>11050419
>Why won't you provide evidence of that?
Because, my source was literally just one of my old biology classes in college. I don't really care or know if the claim is true, I wasn't trying to make that the whole point of my argument. I'm sure I could find another claim that is better than that one anyways.

And it's also logically more likely than your stupid crap, people don't intrinsically assume that the sun is a giant nuclear explosion in space.

>> No.11050430

>>11050426
Thanks for the timestamp 4.
>>11050419
You are focusing on one really random and minute post that I made as if you are destroying my whole worldview because of it. I don't even know or care if it is true, that has nothing to do with my worldview in the manner that it BTFOs me if you prove it wrong or something. Go ahead, prove it wrong. That claim might as well be true but if you proved it wrong who the fuck cares it doesn't imply anything. People don't naturally know the truth but coincidentally the right faith is right.

>> No.11050433

>>11050409
Anyways, that is what I mean by using an almost-infinitely long number as your name. There are base meanings to the numbers and when the numerical string is long enough for you, it will describe you in infinite detail.

>> No.11050440

>>11050433
But they are distinct and consistent numbers since they all use the same key or you know what I mean right? It's complicated.

>> No.11050442

>>11050418
>What is the difference between people anyways?
This doesn't matter. The only thing which matters is what the difference between you and other people are. The difference needs to be rooted in yourself.

>my truth goes beyond subjectivity
How can you know that's the truth?

>Well a long numerical string can theoretically identify anything can't it?
Not what I'm asking about, I'm asking about your own perception of your own name, in the system of which you name others.

>> No.11050446

>>11050440
Thanks for the timestamp 44 which occurs once every single post.

>> No.11050454

>>11050442
No, that is what you were asking, you asked me to elaborate and then you asked my infinitely long number which I won't give. So, uh, yeah. I was right and you were wrong.

Anyways... How can I know that's the truth? Well, yeah, that's a problem that almost everybody has except me haha.
>This doesn't matter
Yeah, because I know that people are all similar to each other in some ways but I know more than you do.

>> No.11050456

>>11050454
And thanks for the 4 also which occurs once in every single post made lol.

>> No.11050474

>>11050456
I thought you said you weren't coming back to this board

>> No.11050480

>>11050474
After this thread.
Thanks for the 4 again I thought I said thanks for the 4 but you just keep giving me them.

>> No.11050485

>>11050454
Why don't you want to give me your 'infinity long number'? Except for the practical issues of actually giving an infinity long number withing a limited textfield, ofc. Can you give me the first 4 numbers?

>that's a problem that almost everybody has except me
How did you solve this problem?

>but I know more than you do.
I'd like to know how you know this, if you care to share

>> No.11050495

>>11050485
Ignore the long number for now.
>How did you solve this problem?
We did together, all people from all of history did in aggregate. And I am just one of the few who coherently has it mostly all understood right now.

I know more than you do because honestly that's just how it is. I mean, that's not a satisfactory answer but like, think about it this way for example, let's just do a simple thought experiment:

Two people, A and B are asked, how does person A know more than person B?

Person A starts considering this and thinking of reasons why, person B just asks person A "How do you know more?"

>> No.11050502

>>11050485
Our monkey brains aren't built to understand everything but by coincidence and with some variation some people know differently or more than others, I so happen to be right about all my beliefs including celestial entities but more than just that alone.

>> No.11050507

>>11050502
And thanks for the timestamp 4 which so happens to occur with every post.

>> No.11050523

>>11050502
>>11050507
Hey look, no 3+1's

>> No.11050525

>>11050523
One of the posts you mentioned did have a 4 in it in the timestamp, so you are wrong again and I am right again lmao. Please quit being objectively wrong.

>> No.11050527

>>11050495
>I mean, that's not a satisfactory answer
No it's not, and i admire that you see that.

> let's just do a simple thought experiment:
It's an interesting experiment. Isn't the fault that person B simply admits to knowing less than person A?

>> No.11050531

>>11050502
Have you ever been wrong?

>> No.11050533

>>11050527
Trust me I know what I am saying and I acknowledge when I say stupid or unsatisfactory things all the time but if I can't express my correctness it doesn't mean I'm not correct just so YOU know. It's hard to do anyways.

And anyways, here's another example.

Person A and B are asked to determine the shape of water.

Person B says that water takes the shape of its container.

Person A says that water may take the shape of its container, but water is also a molecule so water maybe has a shape of its own, and Person A doesn't stop there he keeps going until he reaches a really good conclusion.

>>11050525
And thanks for the timestamp 4.

Ok later guys. And by that I mean I am not posting on this board again but that doesn't mean I am wrong about anything it just means you will not be hearing someone who is right as much then lol.

>> No.11050537

>>11050531
I have been wrong in a detail fashion but my general worldview is correct and I am less wrong than ever. The point is that not only my general worldview is right but also very specific parts of it are also right too.

>> No.11050539

>>11050525
Yeah, that was retarded. But you'll note these fine specimens
>>11050507
>>11050523
>>11050531
With a severe lack of a time stamp 4

>> No.11050546

>>11050533
In this other example, do you identify most with person A or B? I'm lost.

>> No.11050550

holy shit this thread is gold, I claim all the numbers in this thread henceforth as numbers of value. I would like to thank all the unwilling participants for bequeathing unto me these numbers of value, and thus surrendering their eternal powers. With these numbers I shall grow more powerful than any one human being can ever understand, eventually eclipsing the power contained within our universe triggering the great singularity. Soon my friends we shall all experience true freedom.

>> No.11050551

>>11050537
>The point is that not only my general worldview is right but also very specific parts of it are also right too.
Even if you're wrong in details? "I have been wrong in a detail fashion"

>> No.11050701

>>11050539
Thanks for the timestamp 4 oh the irony.
>>11050546
Neither.
>>11050551
In unrelated details. I have been "wrong" before, but not about what I'm claiming in this thread. She is real and my worldview is right and that's not something wrong. I've been wrong about unrelated trivial things before sure, because I didn't have the capacity to be right in those situations. But in this situation I am right.

>>11050550
Not the same thing that I am doing but whatever floats your boat.

>> No.11050716

>>11050701
This was the 79th post in the thread.

Anyways, even if I denied my own truth that I am talking about in this thread it would still be true. I am not some determinant factor that decides this stuff, but what I am saying is true whether or not I or anyone else here agrees. She is real also.

>> No.11050723

>80 posts
>13 responders
"I'm not schizophrenic I swear!"

>> No.11050732

>>11050723
Thinking that the amount of posts I make is correlated with whether or not my viewpoint is correct is a logical fallacy on you.

>> No.11050737

>>11050723
There are 80 posts because me an the 14 people were having a discussion with each other you stupid fuck.

>> No.11050747
File: 38 KB, 700x393, split-james-mcavoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11050747

>>11050737
et cetera

>> No.11050751

>>11050747
you are wrong

>> No.11051059

>>11050273
Right on the money as always.
I will try my best to answer this question properly for you, one day.

>> No.11051066

>>11050298
Uh oh nigga it didn't happen lol

>> No.11051070

>>11050737
>discussion
>it's actually just you having a psychotic episode while everyone around you calls you a retard
lol

>> No.11051151

>>11051070
It's literally just me being correct while people around me act like idiots like always

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/22515699

>> No.11051159

>>11051151
I had a dream about 222

>> No.11051164

That's the 2nd 222 today/
>>11051066
That was a joke fool.

Lol.

>> No.11051171

>>11051164
Thanks for the 4 which happens every post.

>> No.11051174

>>11051171
Ahhh, now let me elaborate on this one.

The odds of rolling a timestamp 44 are 1 in 60, since 44 only happens once every minute, the 4 part only happens once every 10 seconds. Anyways, the 171 which is a number I previously mentioned only happens once every 1000 posts so the combined odds are 1 in 6000.

>> No.11051178

>>11051171
Thanks for the timestamp 44.
Thanks for the 171.
>>11051174
And thanks for the 4 which only happens once in every 10 posts, for an odds of 10% on the low side. Lol.

>> No.11051186

>>11051178
so what did you do on April 4, 2004 at 4:44:44 to post No. 44444444? coom?

>> No.11051191

>>11051186
Not sure, that was not very long after she first appeared to me in a dream. She appeared to me about one year (give or take a couple months) before the Nimitz UFOs in California in November 14 2004

>> No.11051543

>>11050165
All our science is based on models. These abstractions make it easier for us to interpret the world. Until we can simulate a universe, it will all be a simplification, a model.

>> No.11051750

>>11051543
Ok.

>> No.11051834

>>11050165
>If not, there is no current "genuine" equation
What asshat appointed you an authority on what's genuine or not?

>> No.11052521

>>11051834

Thanks for the 4 idiot.

>> No.11052522

>>11052521
Thanks for the timestamp 4.
Thanks for the 21.
I knew there was going to be a shooting today even before I saw it on the news because of her. >>>/x/23561402