/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9735575]

If the Earth was truly rotating, then according to basic mechanics, we shouldn't be able to see any objects traveling in a straight line due to the Coriolis effect. Therefore, Earth must not be rotating, the celestial bodies must be rotating around Earth.

[Anonymous No.9735661]

doesn't the coriolis effect have something to do with angular momentum, e.g. it applies to objects launched from a rotating earth? i have no science background, maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in

[Anonymous No.9735706]

>>9735575
>we shouldn't be able to see any objects traveling in a straight line due to the Coriolis effect
The angular momentum of the Earth is so small that the Coriolis effect isn't noticeable most of the time.

[Anonymous No.9736012]

>>9735575
Undecided if you're a troll, idiot, or just an asshole.
Hurricanes spin in the direction they do because of Coriolis effect.
Foucault pendulum shows the rotation of the Earth. They're the easiest way to demonstrate the world's spin.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqpV1236_Q0

Which way your sink drains is NOT a consequence of the Earth's rotation. Within that small area, the difference in radii (how far you are from the Earth's spin-axis, which is what the Coriolis force really is) is negligible.
However, if you build a perfectly symmetrical tank, fill it with water and wait a week or two (it can take that long for residual currents to completely die), the water will drain clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on the hemisphere. The experiment requires care, but it's not rocket science and has been done many times.
>https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/

[Anonymous No.9736026]

>>9735575
You don't see objects moving in a straight line! You're just not looking closely enough, so they look pretty straight, because the Earth rotates slowly.

[Anonymous No.9736358]

>>9736012
How do you explain the widely observed slight variations in the angular velocity of a Foucault pendulum during eclipses? Hell even one case it was observed to go backwards

[Anonymous No.9736420]

>>9736358
DELET THIS

[Anonymous No.9736423]

>>9736358
Citations? From referred journals, please.
And what the hell does "make a pendulum go backwards" mean?

[Anonymous No.9736438]

>>9736012
OBVOUSLY a troll, do not feed. Also, incidentally, if you must feed trolls, I hear that they enjoy sage on all their food.

[Anonymous No.9736452]

>>9736438
The trouble with 4chan (or maybe just /sci/) is that it's like playing whack-a-mole. There's no way to downvote trolls sufficiently to get them perma-banned.

[Anonymous No.9736465]

>>9736452
Redditor get >>>/out/

[Anonymous No.9736568]

>>9736420
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/07/19/the-strange-story-of-the-eclipse-and-the-pendulum/amp/

[Anonymous No.9736579]

>>9736423
THÉ précession of the pendulum reversed direction

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

[Anonymous No.9736584]

>>9736579
Proof gravity isn’t real that the globists don’t want you to see. It has to be caused by the electro magantism that keeps the sun up

[Anonymous No.9736692]

>>9736579
dumb phoneposter

[Anonymous No.9736886]

>>9736012
Not arguing about water or hurricanes that is self-evident. But explain all of the different effects here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPbzhxYTioM&t=2s
It seems pendulums can made spin anyway you want with a few initial conditions. It doesn't seem to prove anything.

[Anonymous No.9736926]

A pendulum is sensitive to inial conditions. One initial condition is the gravitions field and if that field changed it would change the behavior. I think it is entirely plasible that weird shit going on in the skies could effect it.

[Anonymous No.9736934]

>>9736012
"“While the premise makes sense – that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well – in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

I think you might be full of shit.

[Anonymous No.9736936]

>>9736926
Pendulums have magnetic tips on them, the sun and moon are electromagnetic, gravity is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9736956]

>>9736012
>Hurricanes spin in the direction they do because of Coriolis effect.
The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion where straight lines appear curved because of the relative angular motion of the observer. You are not suggesting that hurricanes are actually straight and just appear to spiral because of the Coriolis effect are you? Because that would be straight bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9736970]

>>9736936
it would still happen if you used a ceramic plumb bob

[Anonymous No.9736973]

>>9736012
>>9736956
If, on the other hand you are just talking about trajectories that is even less true of a statement because hurricanes are seen to go all over the place and don't follow the neat little curves needed to prove rotation as you claim they do.

>pic related

[Anonymous No.9736976]

>>9735575
You're right, and we don't.

[Anonymous No.9736977]

>>9736970
Please show proof.

[Anonymous No.9736980]

>>9736970
What would still happen? You can make pendulums trace out all kinds of patterns. Psychics use pendulums to divine the future all the time, now scientists are using it to prove their failing theories. Oh the fucking irony.

[Anonymous No.9736988]

>>9736452
Please play whack-a-mole with some of these posts.
>>9736886
>>9736934
>>9736956
>>9736973
Or if not pls permabanned self. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.9736997]

>>9736980
>Psychics use pendulums to divine the future all the time

Wtf are you even trying to say? When did god get involved

[Anonymous No.9737001]

>>9736973
>hurricanes are seen to go all over the place
What a load of horseshit.

[Anonymous No.9737031]

>>9737001
Oh look at this. I see hurricanes travelling in the wrong direction. Could it be that there is some other reason why hurricanes take the path that they do more based on pressure gradiants over land masses? Could that be it?

[Anonymous No.9737033]

>>9737031
>I see
Where? Are you fucking retarded?
Why do no tropical cyclones form within 5° of the Equator?

[Anonymous No.9737043]

>>9737033
Sorry I deleted that post because the image was angled in a way which made the data look misleading. I'm not sure what question you are asking. But the point I was making about pressure zones over landmasses seems to be a valid one in the context of hurricanes which are created out of atmospheric pressure differentials. If we look at this image we see that there are wind patterns circulated in opposite directions on the same hemisphere, which does appear to fit the coriolis effect. The occurence of land and typology also plays a role as see in the picture you posted.
The question you appear to be asking is more about hurricane generation, rather than the coriolis effect, so I don't know why its important.

[Anonymous No.9737049]

>>9737043
Tropical cyclones do not form close to the Equator because there's no Coriolis force to start it spinning.
Also why cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere are always deflected to the right and in the Southern Hemisphere to the left.
Can you guess?

[Anonymous No.9737050]

>>9737043
*which does NOT appear to fit the coriolis effect.

[Anonymous No.9737056]

>>9737049
>Coriolis force
It is not a force. See >>9736956
>The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion where straight lines appear curved because of the relative angular motion of the observer. You are not suggesting that hurricanes are actually straight and just appear to spiral because of the Coriolis effect are you?
"Also why cyclones in the Northern Hemisphere are always deflected to the right and in the Southern Hemisphere to the left. Can you guess?"
Yeah I see what your saying. But if you look at the Trade winds in the north and south they appear to travel in a way that contravene the Coriolis Effect. See pic related; >>9737043
We wouldn't expect to see this if it was based on a rotational effect.

[Anonymous No.9737069]

>>9737056
why is the Coriolis effect so hard for you to get?

[Anonymous No.9737073]

>>9737001
hurricanes in every continent. except Antarctica, pretty much everywhere, even London had a hurricane once or twice

[Anonymous No.9737081]

>>9737069
Don't be an idiot. I'm not the one that mischaracterised it as a force and erroneously believes that an optical illusion has the power to generate a hurricane. Lmao.
Your picture doesn't explain the direction of the Trade winds in the northern and southern hemispheres, which was the point of my post.

[Anonymous No.9737093]

>>9735575
The Coriolis effect is real.
It's used to calculate bullet travel paths, weather patterns and longer airplane flights.

For object spending short amount of time in the air, the effect is negligible.
Same is true for the Relativistic effects due to acceleration. You don't notice it when walking or running, but it's still there.

[Anonymous No.9737101]

>>9737093
>longer airplane flights
why doesn't it apply to all airplane flights?

[Anonymous No.9737102]

>>9737081
>optical illusion
>moron doesn't fucking see the .gif in front of his eyes
just kill yourself please

[Anonymous No.9737104]

>>9737069
Never mind. I see it now. The trade winds are moving down so they appear to move in the opposite direction to the winds moving up.

[Anonymous No.9737106]

The Coriolis effect is actually just the magnetic field, it's pretty obvious really. The whole rotation of the earth thing is actually a cover up of what is really rotating, that being the "stars" and other celestial lights in the sky.

This weak, unscientific argument that states we can't feel the motion of something that is moving at a constant rate is not proof that it is rotating! It's an excuse, not scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.9737109]

>>9737106
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.9737113]

>>9737101
Because Earth rotates at somewhat constant speed and if the airplane spends 30 minutes in in the air, the Earth doesn't have enough time to rotate underneath the plane.

This is simplificated example. In reality the atmosphere in which the airplane flies is also dragged and rotates with the Earth, but to a lesser extent at different altitudes.

[Anonymous No.9737128]

>>9737113
Thanks. I find it confusing due to lack of science schooling. This was somewhat helpful in case anyone else is struggling:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/171048/coriolis-force-on-bullet-vs-airplane

[Anonymous No.9737131]

>>9737104
>>9737069
I just tested this theory out on a rotating ball. I started at the equator and drew a line up to the zenith with a highlighter while rotating the ball to the left. I got a line that pulls to the right, as expected. Then I did the same thing only moving the pen from the zenith to the equator of the ball and got a line moving to the right again. Try it for yourself. The trade winds are moving in the wrong direction for the Coriolis effect. Try it for yourself. I will conduct more experiments and let you know if I find anything new.

[Anonymous No.9737132]

>>9737109
Take you post to /x/ forthwith because the amount of arguments it has is non-existent.

[Anonymous No.9737147]

>>9736886
Foucault pendulums are released very carefully to prevent them from tracing a Lissajous pattern.
One of the usual methods is to pull the bob to one side and hold it there with a string. Then they burn the string. This starts the motion without imparting any side-force or torque.

>>9736934
You obviously never learned to read.
The Coriolis effect operates in a toilet bowl, but it vastly overwhelmed by other factors; asymmetries in the bowl and the way the water entered.
I said it required care to eliminate those effects so the Coriolis force predominates. You don't get that when you shit.
Try it. What's in your head could use flushing anyway.

This is NOT the Troll Line.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was passed about 18 hours ago.

[Anonymous No.9737172]

>>9737147
Sorry I just glossed over your comment and then remembered sink and water.

I don't know enough about Foucault's pendulum to say whether you are correct or not. If your experiment has to take account of initial conditions how do you know if the initial conditions you are taking into account are not the one's carefully selected to prove your theory? Does this not level out all of the other conditions that disprove it?

[Anonymous No.9737186]

>>9737172
*leave out

[Anonymous No.9737188]

Why don’t moderators delete this troll dogshit?

[Anonymous No.9737190]

>>9737102
Take a look at this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJIAA7prwk
The guys hand represents the motion of the hurricane, which is straight. But the apparent path on the spinning wheel is a spiral.

[Anonymous No.9737195]

>>9737188
Because it’s legit

[Anonymous No.9737205]

>>9737188
>Let's make sure no one questions scientific thinking even if they don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.9737208]

>>9737093
>For object spending short amount of time in the air
Bullets spend very little time in the air.

[Anonymous No.9737216]

>>9737205
Geocentrist/flat earther trolls are not interested in scientific thinking. They should be banned automatically.

[Anonymous No.9737229]

>>9737216
The basis of science is to question your assumptions. I get the impression that many people here on both sides don't know what they are taking about. Those that blindly agree without understanding are worse than those who question based on bad understanding.

[Anonymous No.9737241]

>>9737229
Doesn’t matter. They are trolls. The fact that debunking trolls provides some education for those unfamiliar with the associated subjects is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.9737244]

>>9737216
>>9737241
There are many people out there with bad or mediocre educations. It's very difficult to understand some of these topics when you are older and have to reverse years of poor or no education on the topic. There are people out there who genuinely think the earth may be flat, but are not sure, so they ask questions, many of which may seem completely elementary to people who have had good science education. Somehow you think everyone who is asking a question is a troll.

[Anonymous No.9737245]

>>9737229
Just like how we all agree blindly that the lizard people aren’t in control and hiding the evedence of a flat earth

[Anonymous No.9737247]

Heliocentrists have been thoroughly BTFO in this thread with nothing more than the power of science. It is not possible for Earth to be rotating because it if was, we could not observe straight line travel without constant acceleration. Perform the following experiment: go to a bowling alley and launch a bowling ball forward. Does it go on a curve? If Earth was rotating, bowling would not even be possible.

[Anonymous No.9737252]

>>9737247

[Anonymous No.9737253]

>>9737244
Everyone that is a flat earther is a troll, yes.
Genuine ones have paranoia and/or schizo, and will never listen to reason. No one that isn’t mentally ill or a troll will not hold the position that earth is flat, since this notion can be disproven by the fact that night and day cycles exist at all. This should be very obvious since the OP made ASSERTIONS rather than ask questions. It is bait, they are trolls, and they should be permanently IP banned.

[Anonymous No.9737258]

>>9737247
Earth’s angular momentum is irrelevant in comparison to gravity and only makes things about 2% lighter at the equator. Stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.9737275]

>>9737244
Dark matter faggot thinks he's got it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.9737276]

The thing I don't get is wouldn't the gravitational pull of the entire universe rotating around the Earth not produce the same exact distortion of the plane as a rotating Earth? All common sense says it would.

[Anonymous No.9737278]

>>9737276
This is in regard to Foucault's pendulum btw. Forgot to mention that.

[Anonymous No.9737280]

>>9737276
Gm1*m2/r^2 follows the inverse square

[Anonymous No.9737282]

>>9737276
The entire universe doesn’t orbit earth. How much mass do you think earth has?

[Anonymous No.9737284]

>>9737280
Interesting. So mathematically it would produce a different pattern would it?

[Anonymous No.9737286]

>>9737280
if the universe in infinite, then there's infinite gravity out there to affect shit on earth

[Anonymous No.9737287]

>>9737286
An infinite universe is simply impossible, as it would prevent the Big Bang occurring at all.

[Anonymous No.9737288]

>>9737282
Would mass be a requirement? Given Newton's laws, if the Universe was set up with those initial conditions wouldn't it just carrying on in that vein until something altered it.

[Anonymous No.9737289]

>>9737287
The current understanding is that the Universe is 'for all intents and purposes infinite'. All of them, including this one.

[Anonymous No.9737290]

>>9737282
don't forget your mom lives here

[Anonymous No.9737294]

>>9737290
/thread

[Anonymous No.9737297]

>>9737289
Yes, because it’s at least 200 times bigger than the observable universe which is incomprehensiblly large by itself and we can’t see beyond the observable universe and almost certainly can’t travel beyond it. However, a truly infinite universe is obviously impossible since infinite matter means infinite gravity and that wouldn’t exactly allow for the universe to expand or ever be anything but a singularity.

[Anonymous No.9737300]

>>9737287
Actually that's a misconception. The universe wasn't a small tiny dot before the Big Bang. It was the exact same size at it is today, but rather all space-time was concentrated into one spot. I had the same idea as you a few years ago until a few /sci/bro showed me this

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

The universe is most likely infinite. With the perceived expansion of the universe only being the stretching of space-time.

[Anonymous No.9737302]

>>9737288
......Mass is required for gravity.

[Anonymous No.9737304]

>>9737286
You don’t have to go very far for it to become bugger all

[Anonymous No.9737305]

>>9737302
But orbits are dependant on speeds.

[Anonymous No.9737309]

>>9737300
>It was the exact same size at it is today, but rather all space-time was concentrated into one spot
Space-time is the universe you retard. There’s no magical aether outside of it.

[Anonymous No.9737314]

>>9737304
You've heard the theory that inertia is the combined weight of all the stars in the universe pressing down on you. Haven't you? "It is the stars that knock you to the floor.

[Anonymous No.9737316]

>>9737309
Ahhh, but there is

[Anonymous No.9737318]

>>9737316
Troll confirmed.

[Anonymous No.9737319]

>>9737309
You misread that.

[Anonymous No.9737321]

>>9737319
No, you worded it in a beyond stupid way.

[Anonymous No.9737322]

>>9737309
>Space-time is the universe you retard.

Yeah, it's like an infinitely large trampoline fabric, with a dense bowling ball at the center stretching the entirety of the trampoline fabric towards the center. That was the universe during the Big Bang. Once the density lessened, the fabric started stretching to become more uniform.

Now did the trampoline fabric grow larger? No it didn't. That's the same idea with the universe.

I think the biggest mystery in science is why did the Big Bang occur 13.7 billion years ago, what triggered the event, the beginning of time, to occur?

[Anonymous No.9737323]

>>9737321
Not that guy. I thought it made perfect sense. Maybe you need to brush up on your cosmology.

[Anonymous No.9737325]

>>9737323
Wrong again. Maybe you don’t know what the word “size” means whatsoever, and meant mass, but space-time being in one spot means it’s a much smaller size than it is now.

[Anonymous No.9737327]

>>9737321
No, the anon you replied to is right, you misread what I wrote. I literally said that the universe is infinite, meaning that there's nothing beyond it. I have no idea how you thought about an implication that a magic aether existed beyond the endless universe.

[Anonymous No.9737328]

>>9737322
It’s literally impossible for the density to decrease with infinite matter you moron.

[Anonymous No.9737330]

>>9737327
Space-time cannot be in one spot whilst the universe is infinite. That’s what the universe is.

[Anonymous No.9737332]

>>9737300
>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Holy crap. I understand the Big Bang in an entirely new way. Thanks for this. It is awesome. A scary, but beautiful thought.

[Anonymous No.9737334]

>>9737328
You must have never taken calculus. Some things go to infinity faster than others. Think y=x^2 vs y=x which goes to infinity faster?

[Anonymous No.9737335]

>>9737325
Space-time can be curved, it can be stretched. What I meant was that space-time was all stretched towards one spot.

>>9737328
>infinite matter

Who implied infinite matter? I never said such a thing. You don't need infinite matter to attain infinite density. As a matter of fact, you can get infinite density with the mass of a peanut. All you need is just mass compressed to the absolute limits. Hence why the singularity of a black hole supposedly has infinite density.

[Anonymous No.9737337]

>>9737334
Neither. Infinity isn’t reachable and that’s nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.9737339]

>>9737335
>Who implied infinite matter? I never said such a thing. You don't need infinite matter to attain infinite density. As a matter of fact, you can get infinite density with the mass of a peanut. All you need is just mass compressed to the absolute limits. Hence why the singularity of a black hole supposedly has infinite density.

That’s nonsensical. The density would just be whatever the mass of the peanut is.

[Anonymous No.9737340]

>>9737337
You need to study the end behavior of equations. It will change your view of the known universe.

[Anonymous No.9737343]

>>9737340
Fine. Where?

[Anonymous No.9737344]

>>9737337
Some equations approach a limit at infinity. The inverse square law basically says that even though there is infinite mass because it is infinitely away it’s force will be zero

[Anonymous No.9737345]

>>9737332
I had the exact same feeling as you a few years ago my friend, glad I could pass on that link to someone else just as it was passed on to me. It really was amazing seeing the universe in a new light like that. Exactly as you described it, a scary, but beautiful thought.


>>9737330
The universe during/""""before""""" the Big Bang was essentially one big black hole that covered the entirety of all existence, of all space-time and matter. All matter in existence was concentrated into one single spot of infinite density, with space-time being stretched to the absolute limits around this singularity.

Just like pic related, but instead it was all the mass of the universe in one spot. The Big Bang was essentially this singularity breaking apart and space-time finally stretching back to uniformity and not concentration into one spot.

[Anonymous No.9737347]

>>9737345

[Anonymous No.9737348]

>>9737344
How can mass get infinitely away from the other mass without violating the speed of light?

[Anonymous No.9737351]

>>9737345
I can’t think of any mechanism whatsoever that would allow a singularity to just explode and scatter its contents everywhere. Black holes take forever to evaporate.

[Anonymous No.9737355]

>>9737348
The universe is inflating in the fourth dimension. So there is a literal horizion which we cannot see beyond.

[Anonymous No.9737356]

>>9737355
That's cool bro.

[Anonymous No.9737357]

>>9737345
BTW I'm aware of my usage of the word "mass" being incorrect here but I think the message I'm conveying forward is accurate. Also, English is my third language so forgive any mistakes I may have made in my posts.

>>9737339
>The density would just be whatever the mass of the peanut is.

Mass itself isn't what affects the curvature of space-time, density is what affects space-time. The mass of the Earth compressed into the size of a penny would create a black hole with intense space-time curvature around the singularity of the black hole. Meanwhile since the density of the sun isn't that big of a deal (large mass over large area) it won't have space-time concentrated as intensely into one spot.

I also don't really understand what you're trying to say here. What's your point exactly?

[Anonymous No.9737358]

>>9737355
So other observable universes that don’t overlap with ours are effectively other universes?

[Anonymous No.9737359]

>>9737351
That’s why it is such an important question

[Anonymous No.9737361]

>>9737357
You're English sucks fucking dick and so does you're sciance.

[Anonymous No.9737362]

>>9737357
The idea of infinite density existing without infinite matter confuses me and I don’t see how infinite density at that scale could ever be broken without quintillion’s of years of Hawking radiation or something rather than just popping like a zit like the universe did.

[Anonymous No.9737363]

>>9737361
>sciance

[Anonymous No.9737366]

>>9737347
It's all the theory of relativity. It's a well-substantiated theory but heck it might turn out to be wrong, just like our previous understanding of Newtonian gravity.

>>9737351
Read my earlier posts. I explicitly said that in my opinion, the biggest mystery in science is what triggered the Big Bang (singularity falling apart and allowing energy to transfer from one small point to large universal distances) to trigger specifically 13.7 billion years ago. You can't think of a mechanism because it hasn't been answered by science yet. And when scientists start thinking about what mechanism triggered the Big Bang, then they're forced to think about a scenario """before"""" the Big Bang, which should be physically impossible since before the Big Bang time was frozen and no event could have possibly occurred.

Back when I was a theist I would use this argument often against atheists but now I think it's just dishonest to profit off human ignorance. Hopefully theoretical physics can find an answer one day.

[Anonymous No.9737367]

>>9737362
As density is mass over volume if your mass is finite and you make the volume infinitesimally the system still goes to infinity.

[Anonymous No.9737369]

>>9737300
>The universe wasn't a small tiny dot before the Big Bang. It was the exact same size at it is today, but rather all space-time was concentrated into one spot
This sounds completely ludicrous if you think about it for more than one second. A completely shit theory.

[Anonymous No.9737371]

>>9737366
Any universe with cause-and-effect requires an ignition that violates causality. Don’t see why that can’t just be a macrouniverse fart and has to be a literal actual entity that thinks and has a beard.

[Anonymous No.9737373]

>>9737361
>you're sciance.

lol :)

>>9737362
It's a question of definition. When people think about "dense" objects, they're thinking about heavy objects. But the scientific term is different. The scientific definition of density is the concentration of mass over an area. The mass of the Earth in the area the size of a penny would create infinite density, but the mass of our entire galaxy over an area that is very large is very light and doesn't have a big density.

So you see, mass here is irrelevant, what's relevant is the size of which said mass is compressed into. The more compressed the mass is, the more intense the space-time curvature. During Big Bang, the entirety of the mass of the universe was concentrated into one spot the size of a tiny particle, so you can imagine how intense the space-time curvature was.

[Anonymous No.9737376]

Well this thread got spicy

[Anonymous No.9737377]

>>9737367
That doesn’t make sense to me if we assume distance is “turtles all the way down” and length can just get arbitrarily smaller and smaller without any real limit and doesn’t make sense to me if we assume there’s some kind of ultimate grid that puts limits on how small things can be. How can ANYTHING be infinitesimally small in either case?

[Anonymous No.9737382]

>>9737377
What happens to f(x) as x approaches zero

[Anonymous No.9737383]

>>9737371
>Any universe with cause-and-effect requires an ignition that violates causality

That's what logic dictates naturally. But who knows, it might be the one exception lol.

>Don’t see why that can’t just be a macrouniverse fart and has to be a literal actual entity that thinks and has a beard.

Hahahah yeah I think the theory of it being a bearded humanoid figure is off the table but the idea of a macrouniverse fart is merely a hypothesis with no evidence at all to it. Science works on evidence and the Big Bang has good evidence to it, but sadly the idea of a macrouniverse fart simply has no basis at all.

[Anonymous No.9737399]

>>9737377
>there’s some kind of ultimate grid that puts limits on how small things can be

Called the Planck length my friend. Einstein said space-time is made out of "quantum foam" and that the smallest grid unit possible is the Planck length. Anything smaller doesn't make physical sense.

>How can ANYTHING be infinitesimally small in either case?

I see mathematics as a tool to describe the properties of the universe. Trying to make physical sense out of math doesn't always work out. We can know that the math is good, but never really understand what pertinence it has to the governing physical laws of the universe.

But point in case, the concepts infinitely large and infinitely small do exist in math and many functions go on for infinite trying to reach each.

[Anonymous No.9737400]

>>9737382
Alright I get it now, but it still doesn’t sit right with me.

>>9737383
Mindless macrouniverse farts are the safest assumption right now.

[Anonymous No.9737406]

>>9737399
So...point particles are just Planck lengths in size?

[Anonymous No.9737410]

>>9737400
>Mindless macrouniverse farts are the safest assumption right now.

Lol, religious people will tell you that the true "safest" assumption is believing in some anthropomorphic supernatural entity instead but I digress. Scientifically, it does seem much more plausible than other alternatives, mainly because there aren't many other alternatives.

It's funny but some other alternatives link it to the end of the universe. Something like the Big Crunch where the universe expands so much that it reaches a limit, then starts collapsing and growing smaller, condensing all matter into one spot until it reaches pre-Big Bang levels of density and there we go again.

But the idea of the universe existing in an endless cycle seems terrifying to my biological instincts. I'll go with mindless macrouniverse fart instead.

[Anonymous No.9737421]

>>9737406
I choose to ignore anything below the atomic level. Fuck quantum physics

[Anonymous No.9737428]

>>9737406
Point particles aren't real, just an idea made up to simplify the understanding of other theories. If point particles did exist, and were one dimensional, then they'd be smaller than the Planck length which physically doesn't make sense.

Aaah sorry just understood what you meant. Now you've made me really think. No, the Planck length isn't the size of point particles, since the Planck length can actually be measured, while point particles have literally 0 length. Sorry won't bullshit, but I don't know what theoretical physics says any more about this. But I guess you could technically have an infinitesimal length going until it "nearly" but never reaches 0. Meanwhile point particles are just 0.

[Anonymous No.9737436]

>>9737421
Hahahah yep makes no sense at all. I mean we could say that the Planck length is the limit of how small anything can possibly be, physics works up to there, but despite that can't we hypothetically think of going even smaller distances, to draw up smaller grid lines for space-time continuum? Aaaaaah

I guess this is what happens when you apply math to physics. Limits in calculus 1 taken to a physical level all over again.

[Anonymous No.9737441]

>>9737428
So it really is turtles all the way down? Fuck.
Are singularities in black holes objects with the diameter of a Planck length or points?

[Anonymous No.9737457]

>>9737441
Thinking about a theoretical grid line to the space-time continuum is like thinking about the smallest size of length possible. It's kind of impossible, since whatever you bring up, I'll just say "yeah but divide that number by 2 and it's smaller".

This whole argument is all about whether infinitesimals or limits are "real", real in the sense that they have a physical manifestation. Well the answer is that infinitesimals are real just like complex numbers are, that they're abstract mathematical concepts. There are some mathematical concepts that obviously have examples in the physical world such as topology or geometry but abstract concepts don't really always have examples. And when we try to make examples out of them, doesn't make physical sense at all.

It's very vague. The math makes sense, infinitesimals do exist, but our intuition fights against it. Our brains just can't make sense of it even though the science and math does work.

[Anonymous No.9737460]

>>9737457
Correction : Yeah, you could say the smallest amount of length possible is an infinitesimal. That's 100% correct. But trying to think about it physically is very counter-intuitive. I should mention that it's not vague at all, just our flawed biology at work here.

[Anonymous No.9737470]

>>9737460
Curse our ape brains. Hurry up with strong AI.

[Anonymous No.9737488]

>>9735575
Flat Earth is a Russian Psyop