Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 19:57:00 UTC No. 16238207

>[math]f[/math] is constant
Uh so shouldn't it be equal to 0 if it can't increase?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:02:13 UTC No. 16238213

>>16238207
What? What is f?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:05:58 UTC No. 16238222

>>16238213
>incapable of reasoning about middle school math concepts
Yep, Christian.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:29:13 UTC No. 16238271

>>16238207
f increases to the constant value the moment it is created on whatever medium. You’re retarded.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:35:00 UTC No. 16238281

>>16238222
I’m not a christtranny but you’re of those tards that believe in an infinite past, correct?

Can you see how an infinite past is impossible? If we passed that amount of time to get here, then it wouldn’t be an infinite past now would it?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:39:25 UTC No. 16238291

More puzzling is energy cannot be created or destroyed but the entropy will always increase??

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:42:59 UTC No. 16238298

>>16238271
>constant values are increasing
>but you're the retard

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:49:40 UTC No. 16238314

>>16238298
What do you think energy is?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:54:12 UTC No. 16238323

>>16238314
The thing you get when you apply Noether's theorem to spatial translations.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 20:59:28 UTC No. 16238330

>>16238323
You've just answered your own question.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:01:03 UTC No. 16238335

>>16238330
I didn't ask a single question in this thread.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:01:39 UTC No. 16238337

>>16238298
Right so energy must be eternally constant into the past. See >>16238281

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:05:02 UTC No. 16238343

>>16238337
Infinite past is completely irrelevant to this topic, and not all constant functions are null. Retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:08:43 UTC No. 16238353

>>16238204
yes, the laws of conservation of mass and energy are violated by the big bang as currently understood. this isn't controversial or new.

similar state to the baryon asymmetry, which has to violate conservation of baryon number, which has exactly zero experimental evidence and yet, here we are, being baryon blobs.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:12:49 UTC No. 16238361

>>16238204
>>Energy can’t be created or destroyed
that's only true on small scales. Redshifts are a form of energy loss from the universe

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:14:50 UTC No. 16238365

>>16238204
Mass and energy are both conserved.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:16:28 UTC No. 16238372

>>16238361
Frame conservation doesn't violate conservation of mass-energy.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:17:25 UTC No. 16238374

>>16238204
no, the cosmos is all the possible energy, it always has been, and it will always be.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:17:30 UTC No. 16238375

>>16238314
Potential mass.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:18:51 UTC No. 16238379

>>16238374
Can time be quantized?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:21:28 UTC No. 16238384

>>16238343
Your function is not something that exists in reality, tard. Reality is discrete and does not contain infinities or infinitely detailed volumes of space.

Math rests on some axioms and those axioms are not 1:1 with reality. So when discussing physics you can’t make a maths statement and assume you can project it onto physics because the math we have constructed is not 1:1 with physics (mostly due to continuousness and infinities in our math).

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:23:51 UTC No. 16238387

>>16238365
… except for when the universe went from 0 energy to some energy and when redshift causes loss of energy. So yeah energy is conserved except for when it isn’t.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:24:47 UTC No. 16238389

>>16238384
Do you agree or disgree with the following statement?

Infinities exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:25:54 UTC No. 16238392

>>16238387
How much did the singularity weigh?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:29:11 UTC No. 16238400

>>16238389
They exist in human imagination and in fantasy frameworks like our current maths system. Does the lord of the rings universe exist? In imagination only.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:29:39 UTC No. 16238402

>>16238361
Conserved to what exactly? we are burning energy sitting in drive through lines waiting on high calorie (energy) fast food while barely doing anything all day.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:30:39 UTC No. 16238407

>>16238400
Can one be divided by infinity?

In real life, by the way.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:32:42 UTC No. 16238410

>>16238402
>Implying discrete infinities don't exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:34:15 UTC No. 16238420

>>16238407
No you would eventually hit the discrete constituents of this ”one” object and be unable to further divide it.

In fact if this ”one” object is the smallest constituent of reality you could not even divide it by 2.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:34:40 UTC No. 16238422

>>16238353
Exactly one of the major problems of big bang, is baryon asymmetry

Keep dreaming pop sci fags

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:37:25 UTC No. 16238429

>>16238420
What's the smallest constituent of reality? How do you know it's the smallest?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:39:37 UTC No. 16238431

>>16238422
>What is CP violation?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:43:25 UTC No. 16238438

>>16238429
It’s not discovered yet but the alternative is infinite detail to even one cubic picometer of space, which is obviously absurd.

If reality is continuous and infinitely detailed that means you can squeeze out an infinitely powerful computer in miniscule space. And the smaller you’d make such a computer the lesser the energy it would require to operate for the same gargantuan computing power. Complete looney shit.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:47:13 UTC No. 16238442

>>16238410
>>16238438
Infinity doesn't have to be discrete.

Why can't continuous infinites exist?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:49:20 UTC No. 16238446

>>16238442
Convince me chronons don't exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:57:13 UTC No. 16238454

>>16238446
>It is continuity that enables modern mathematics to surmount the paradox of extension framed by the pre-Socratic eleatic Zeno—a paradox comprising the question of how a finite interval can be made up of dimensionless points or instants.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:01:26 UTC No. 16238460

>>16238454
The points or instants are not dimensionless, they’re just impercievably small to us.

Simulacrum at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:02:04 UTC No. 16238463

>>16238204
>Energy can’t be created or destroyed
>Uh so shouldn’t the universe contain 0 energy if it can’t be created?
There are a few problems here.

First off, the question presupposes that it's physically possible that a universe can exist without having energy. That's pretty questionable. How can the universe exist without any energy? Doesn't seem possible from what we know about physics.

Secondly, the question is either presupposing that the universe had a beginning and/or energy being created violates the first law of thermodynamics. Let's be clear that the first law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. If the universe had a beginning and had energy inside of it when it was created, then there was no violation of the first law, as no energy was created within an isolated system. It would be nonsensical to argue that the creation of the universe was creation of energy in an isolated system, since "before" the universe no systems existed. It wouldn't make sense that "nothingness" would be a system.

>>16238281
>Can you see how an infinite past is impossible? If we passed that amount of time to get here, then it wouldn’t be an infinite past now would it?
If 'we' passed an infinite amount of time to get here, then it would follow that the past is infinite, not the other way around.

>>16238353
>yes, the laws of conservation of mass and energy are violated by the big bang as currently understood. this isn't controversial or new.
No, the Big Bang theory doesn't say that energy was created. This is a common misconception. As it currently stands, we cannot validly extrapolate the known laws of physics to the beginning of time, or to the 'singularity,' because we do not have a quantum theory of gravity.

>>16238365
This is wrong. Mass is not always conserved. For example, nuclear fusion destroys the mass of the particles that are being fused.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:06:55 UTC No. 16238468

>>16238463
Do you honestly believe that a clock can tick away and eventually reach infinity? Like come on now.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:09:46 UTC No. 16238476

>>16238204
Conservation laws are approximations. Macroscopic properites are conserved because that's how they're defined. There are always exceptions to conservation laws.

Simulacrum at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:10:01 UTC No. 16238477

>>16238468
>Do you honestly believe that a clock can tick away and eventually reach infinity? Like come on now.

Who said anything about a clock reaching infinity?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:10:47 UTC No. 16238478

>>16238468
>Like come on now.
This is not science.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:27:02 UTC No. 16238497

>>16238477
For the past to be infinite that is exactly what has to have happened. It is so obviously wrong/nonsense.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:30:38 UTC No. 16238504

>>16238497
Infinite time is a given once you account for Heaven and Hell.

Simulacrum at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:34:05 UTC No. 16238507

>>16238497
>For the past to be infinite that is exactly what has to have happened. It is so obviously wrong/nonsense.
I think you're confused. The past being infinite just means that there is an infinite number of events in the past. It also means that if you were to invent a time machine and keep going back in time, there would be no stopping point. The past being infinite does not entail that a sequential process can 'reach infinity,' whatever that would mean.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:35:38 UTC No. 16238510

>>16238507
What if time is a loop?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:37:03 UTC No. 16238514

>>16238431
NTA, but no observed CP violation has ever violated baryon number.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:38:11 UTC No. 16238517

>>16238507
>infinite number of events
A clock is exactly a counter of events. Past events, past clock ticks, same thing. So the number of events ticked up one by one and reached past infinity eventually.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:43:07 UTC No. 16238526

>>16238514
NTA, but T symmetry can fix that issue.

Simulacrum at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:50:15 UTC No. 16238543

>>16238517
>So the number of events ticked up one by one and reached past infinity eventually.

I think I'm starting to see what your error is. The 'clock,' if there is such a thing, never started to tick up one by one and reach infinity. If the past is infinite, the clock was always ticking, and the number of ticks that has occurred has always been infinity. Thus, the number of ticks never reached infinity, because the number of ticks has always been infinity. This is a past-infinite universe.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:00:57 UTC No. 16238567

>>16238204
Right, we don't fully understand the extremes of our universe. Rest assured there are some very smart people poring over mountains of data to try and explain this very problem, and you clearly aren't one of them (nor do you need to be)

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:29:27 UTC No. 16238600

>>16238526
are you not familiar with the Sakharov conditions? T symmetry is what necessitates thermal disequilibrium to explain baryogenesis

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:41:37 UTC No. 16238622

>>16238543
Meaningless word salad, sorry to say. I appreciate your high effort posts though.

Simulacrum at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 23:53:12 UTC No. 16238641

>>16238622
What I said makes perfect sense. Let's go back to your previous comment:

>So the number of events ticked up one by one and reached past infinity eventually.

What do you mean by this exactly? If you're saying that the clock began to tick and reach infinity, then this doesn't represent an infinite past, because in an infinite past there would be no start to the ticks. Thus, your analogy doesn't represent an infinite past at all. Your analogy only represents a finite past.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 13:26:49 UTC No. 16239401

>>16238204
The energy in the universe is slowly dispersing as it expands

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:53:47 UTC No. 16239712

>>16238641
I don't think the person talking about clocks understands that time is not real

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:39:27 UTC No. 16239857

>>16239712
Time is the same thing as state changes in the universe, it’s not a thing in and of itself.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:50:52 UTC No. 16240735

>>16238379
>Can time be quantized?
No one has an answer for that. Our measurement of time is quantized, though that does not imply it is a real representation of the nature of time itself. That's like asking if distance is quantized or continuous. We don't know, but we do know that when we try to measure it as precisely as possible, it presents itself as a quantized phenomenon since the subatomic-world presents itself as quantized itself, and we have to measure things relative to, and between, "real" things like particles and radiation, and not in terms of abstract, imaginary "points" in "space".
But all this is borderline philosophy, so a bit useless to waste time on this since we just have no way to test things, we're very limited by the scale differences of what we're talking about, that is, the scale of our world and the Planck-level scales.
The best we can do is keep smashing things together at higher and higher energies in the hopes that more of the universe's infrastructure will "crack" and reveal itself.