yes

>>16933188
You take it for granted but such was not obvious at the time. You have the luxury of modernity on your side where you learn such groundbreaking discoveries as if they were common knowledge.

>>16933188
>What is a torsor?

>>16933188
thing moves when you move move it

>>16933188
>things without mass can still have momentum and kinetic energy
>whoa

>general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible so at least one of them must be wrong, but it's probably both
woah

>>16933484
they're only incompatible if you assume they can be unified. if you assume there's no unifying theory for them you don't run into problems.

>>16933518
What the fuck does that even mean? Reality exists, there has to be a way to explain the patterns of nature. At a fundamental level one or both the theories is wrong, because you can't have two fundamental theories a disagree on the nature of reality, that doesn't make any logical sense

>>16933518
unfortunately they both describe the same universe so they have to be unified, if you somehow proved that they can't be then you'd just be proving they're incomplete

>>16933188
No such thing as a particle not in motion, though.

>>16933518
>>16933520
>>16933532
>/sci/ discovers the EPR Paradox

>>16933520
>The Earth exists
>There exist multiple 2D projection models of earth
>Wtf do you mean they're incompatible?
>There is ONE earth and so a singular correct 2D projection must exist!!!
Retard alert lol

>>16933520
>>16933532
/sci/tards assume feynman was wrong

>>16933520
God midwits are dumb

>>16933518
>then you don't run into problems
but what if you encounter a system that can't be properly described without taking both general relativity and quantum mechanics into account simultaneously?

>>16933548
Irrelevant
>>16933598
A 2D projection for is necessarily an incomplete discreption. If that analogy somehow applies here, then both theories are incomplete. In this case a 3D model of the earth is the equivalent of a deeper theory
>>16933623
retard

>>16933628
>if
What is such system? Unless such a system has been observed, it's a waste of time to formulate a model for it. Doing such would be schizophrenic

>>16933637
All models are wrong. Do you understand that? Do you know what a model is? If an alleged model describes all of reality, then what is wrong with it?

>>16933518
>they're only incompatible if you assume they can be unified. if you assume there's no unifying theory for them you don't run into problems.
Except for the obvious problem that at least one of them can't be taken to reflect anything fundamental about the structure of reality anymore.

>>16933598
if multiple 2d projections of the same earth are incompatible, then at least one of them must be wrong

>>16933598
>>There exist multiple 2D projection models of earth
>>Wtf do you mean they're incompatible?
Yeah, what DO you mean when you say they're incompatible, retard? On one hand, they are all compatible in the aspects intended to reflect reality. On the other hand, they are all wrong because none of them reflect the planet's actual geometric structure.

>>16933598
How did this make so many /sci/tards seethe lol

>>16933679
>why did people correct an obviously mistaken argument
hmmm

>>16933694
There is nothing wrong with the statement. I think /sci/tards, including (You), got btfo so unambiguously with the analogy that there's nothing left to do except double down or seethe. Either a singular model perfectly capitulates reality (at which point it is no longer a model and instead a tautological representation of reality itself) or all of reality is described by different, independent models that covers the blind spots of the others. The latter is a necessary outcome of modeling reality.

>>16933710
>There is nothing wrong with the statement.
>the statement
What statement?

>>16933710
>Either a singular model perfectly capitulates reality (at which point it is no longer a model and instead a tautological representation of reality itself)
>capitulates
>tautological
Interesting proposition, retard. Explain why a model that "capitulates" reality not a model. And make sure you use words you actually understand.

>>16933716
You don't know what a model is lol. It's okay to be ignorant. I understand it makes you happy. It however does not make you correct. You can start by asking an AI what the difference is between the law of gravity and a model of gravity. Hint: one is reality and devoid of modeling.

>>16933721
I notice he correctly predicted your inability to justify your claim.

>>16933710
the analogy is wrong because it uses the word incompatible wrong, if you're imaging earth in different 2d projections and get all of them right then they are all compatible with each other, therefore if you find a genuine incompatibility that you can't reconcile that's hard evidence that you made a mistake somewhere

>>16933722
If you know what a model is, you'd see how retarded a question it is. I won't waste time effort-posting for an idiot who doesn't understand the words he's using.

>>16933721
Actually AI is also bad at this lol.

>>16933727
>>16933721
Buddy your entire argument is an obviously trollish "but science isn't trying to figure out the truth anyway tee hee", get the fuck out of here. Your cope is unreal.

>>16933727
>If you know what a model is
Explain what a model is. Protip: you won't. Nevermind your 70 IQ. You're obviously mentally ill.

>>16933735
Something that describes an aspect of something else. All models are wrong.

>>16933735
>Nevermind your 70 IQ.
Can't make this shit up lol. Never mind is two words, btw. Next time you insult someone's IQ, you should take care to not make such dumb mistakes.

>>16933738
>Something that describes an aspect of something else.
"Your mother's vile cunt" describes an aspect of the thing that spawned you. Is that a model? :^)

>All models are wrong.
Why? Notice how you start foaming at the mouth and losing your mind with rage over this question.

>>16933730
Contextual truths are all science can claim. If you're seeking universal truths, go to church.

>>16933744
>>16933747
You will never be a scientist.

>>16933738
>>16933750
>Something that describes an aspect of something else.
"Your mother's vile cunt" describes an aspect of the thing that spawned you. Is that a model? Are you sure you know what a model is? Because you're clearly having difficulties explaining. :^)

>All models are wrong.
Why? Notice how you start foaming at the mouth and losing your mind with rage over this question.

File: smart_brainlet.jpg (29.8 KB)

29.8 KB JPG

>Contextual truths are all science can claim. If you're seeking universal truths, go to church.
Mentally ill biological token guessers sure love regurgitating generic talking points in contexts where they are are irrelevant and don't work.

File: Feynman_Strings_small.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>tfw /sci/ thinks feynman is an ai tech-bro idiot
amazing.

>mentally ill biological token stringer posts its training data
Teaching 70 IQs how to read is a total waste of time. They don't grasp anything they read and can't apply it except in the way of regurgitating based on keywords/template matching.

>>16933188
Le bald

>>16933748
and in the context of the foundations of physics, we can see the truth that we haven't figured them out yet, retard

>>16933904
>yet
so you know it's true that they're not true, as in you've found a truth without proof? go to church, kid.

File: brainlet-cube.png (184.8 KB)

184.8 KB PNG

>so you know it's true that they're not true, as in you've found a truth without proof? go to church, kid.
A product of American leftranny "education".

>>16933944
yes, the fact that they're incompatible is hard proof that at least one of them is wrong

>>16933965
>incompatibility implies one is wrong
no, not even close to true. see>>16933766

>>16933987
Putting aside your appeal to pop-sci authorities, nothing in that text contradicts him or supports your delusions.

>>16933988
>feynman is a pop-sci authority
lmfao

>>16933989
He obviously is. Regardless, I accept your concession that nothing in your text supports your delusions nor contradicts >>16933965.

File: cis girls laughing.png (153.4 KB)

153.4 KB PNG

>>16933992
>feynman is obviously pop-sci

>>16933998
To be fair to Feynman, he probably never intended intellectually disabled "people" like you as the main target audience for his pop-sci efforts, but every time you post about him you demonstrate my point.

EINSTEIN DIDN’T BELIEVE IN FREE WILL

YOUR MISTAKES WERE ALWAYS MEANT TO HAPPEN

YOU WERE MEANT TO LIVE A SHIT LIFE

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-

>>16934009
woah

>>16934006
YWNBAP

>>16933987
notice how he still claims there's one single nature, not multiple of them like your nonsense demands

>>16933598
you frfr thought you cooked w/this shiii lmaooo clown moment bruh

Particles are described well by QM. Objects made of many particles are described well by GR. Therefore GR and QM are describing the same thing in different contexts. Therefore GR and QM must be compatible with each other. This has nothing to do with beauty or elegance, it's simply what the universe is observed to be doing. It's okay if one theory is good at describing one level of reality and bad at describing the other, and vice versa. It's not okay if one theory is completely incapable of describing the other's level of reality, because that conflicts with observations of the universe. Clearly the universe knows better how it works than we do. Arguing that the two levels of reality are somehow separate is nonsense. Arguing that the two theories are complete even though they don't measure up to the universe as we observe it is nonsense.

>>16933716
A complete and accurate description isn't just a modeling of something, it is a tautological reflection of the thing being completely and accurately described.

>>16933747
>>All models are wrong.
>Why?
Because they aren't complete or 1:1 accurate of the thing being described.

>>16934054
>Objects made of many particles are described well by GR.
No.

>>16934202
Yes.

>>16934700
No. The simple word of graviton should be enough to prove you wrong. But it's not because you're a pseud

>>16934713
>calls others pseuds while bringing up his preferred type of pseudoscience
lol

you better hope someone actually detects a graviton soon, because until that happens you will be perpetually wrong

>>16933188
You do not understand a single einstein equation lol.

>>16934724
you mouthbreathing faggot, he's arguing against gravitons

>>16934766
so he's just randomly hallucinating the recurrence of an argument he's had five years ago or something? that's even more stupid

>>16934713
Did you confuse GR with QM? Gravitons are not an argument against GR because they don't exist in GR.

>>16934795
>>16934766

>>16934801
>>16934700

>>16934820
>>16934202
>>16934713

>>16934827
>>16934700
>>16934054

>>16934837
>>16933766
>>16933750
>>16933651

>>16934841
>>16934054

>>16933206
The bicammeral mind was lost coincidentally when Carthaginian faggots took over the world. What a convenient coincidence is that.

>>16934870
>>16933766

>>16934959
>>16934054

File: hero-einstein-sleeping-solwing-rpoblems-2025-0-jpg.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Start doing this.. muh rest energy

>>16935013
i don't have much of that so i'll just keep resting instead

>>16933716
It seems so obvious to me that the word he meant to use there was "encapsulates" and yet this thread continues to string along in retarded directions. Wouldn't be surprised if this was some kinda bot fight.

>>16934795
The obvious point would have been that GR isn't describing "made of many particles" because particles have nothing to do with GR. The closest association would be gravitons, which is a retarded attempt to make particles and GR mix. At least that seems to be what the argument was, though the person again veered off instead of coherently sticking to the point.

>>16935020
That's silly because GR has nothing to do with macroscopic objects either by that logic. What a dumb argument.

GR is about the fabric of space. It has nothing to do with particles or macroscopic objects, unless spacetime is an object in which case you're an idiot

>>16935192
It describes gravity which is part of the description of how objects behave on a macroscopic level. To say it has nothing to do with it is retarded.

>>16935627
Objects which are not particles

>>16935758
QM tells you that they are. You need to complete connections like that, not go in the other direction like a retard.

>>16935835
>GR
>QM
Retard lol

>>16935836
They describe the same universe so they need to be compatible or else one of them is wrong. That's the point.

>>16935837
Wrong.

>>16935899
Retard.

>>16935909
>>16935837
YWNBAP

>>16935946
I accept your concession.

>this thread
Woah

>>16935967
>Indian debate syntax

File: r.png (90.5 KB)

90.5 KB PNG

>>16938218
how's it going buddy

>>16938248
Dispirited. Too many Indians in these threads. I gave up early.
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&search_text=I+accept+your+concession

>>16938373
That's common 4chan vernacular. It has been for years. It's not suddenly about indians when anons from the whole world have been saying it for half a decade. Stop being a newfag.

>>16938376
>common vernacular
Is that like verdant greenery?
Maybe time to cut your losses?

>>16938384
I accept your concession.

>>16937687
Yeah, I'm not finding the words. It's worse than the climate change threads.

>>16938394
>Indian debate syntax

>>16933188
They knew that shit for thousands of years they just didn't have the ability to observe it.

>>16938616
they observed molecular geometry indirectly, which isn't quite the same as observing particles indirectly

>>16933188
he's german though
ze Particle has ze Energy venn ze is nein im Motion

File: chuckle-sensible.gif (299.6 KB)

299.6 KB GIF

>>16938860

>>16934872
>The euclidian mind was lost coincidentally when cartesian visigoths took over the world. What a convenient coincidence is that.

>>16938860
>german
>le parçacığı, LE hareketinde olmadığında LE enerjisine sahiptir
>kebab

>>16933188
Woah

I fucking hate you faggots.

>>16946422
And the majority of the world hates you, seriously.
I do not owe you a fucking penny you verminous nonce.

>>16946422
<333

>>16946422
I’m gay

>>16933484
Mass energy equivalence is a property of SR not GR, SR and QM are already unified under QFTs
>>16933188
It's a consequence of the relativistic formula for kinetic energy, which is a result of the geometry of Minkowski spaces.

>>16933518
Reality is unified, so there must be a theory that describes all of reality, not just a subset of reality.

File: S T A C K.webm (625.5 KB)

625.5 KB WEBM

>>16933188
They never stop moving.
The particles that is.
They never rest, they are all, always in motion.
To put a particle "into rest", you connect it to a larger object, and then the combined energy becomes a new larger measurement, yet still in motion.
Nothing in the universe is standing still.
Not even black holes.
The black holes particles are all moving, but simultaneously as a single entity, as a singularity/black-hole as a singular object, black holes break elements and atoms down to the smallest, lowest Planck foundational, fundamental level and packs the pieces together to the point there is no room for movement between the pieces. So the entire unit moves and acts as a whole with no room for pieces to move freely, as they are broken down to the smallest size, and packed together as densely as possible....

But every single fundamental, foundational part of the universe, all moves at the same 1 Planck time movement, they move 1 Planck space, all simultaneously.
All of the Pi quantity of base level foundational Planck level building blocks in the entire universe move 1 Planck distance, in 1 Planck time, all at the same time.
Ladies and gentlemen...I give you....the wave function collapse....

The energy from the Big Bang expansion or impact, that initially separated the Singularity, the Pi quantity of base Planck layer parts, cannot exit the system, and is now trapped in here.
So the parts can never return back to a singularity state, and the energy can never fully separate the parts out infinitely.

Neither Ying nor Yang...Black nor White....Fight nor flight...Open/Close....On/Off.....
We now have Yes/No/MAYBE....we now have Fight/Flight/INVESTIGATE
Neither serious nor humorous....some other......secret thing....fractal balance dance...
The parts attempting to magnetically connect back together, and the energy expanding the parts outward, must form a new state......

https://youtu.be/S3eqw3hLRRU?si=oX6pVaZSXYiXoPV5

>>16959781
i know you probably think you're funny, but everyone here can tell you're making shit up wholesale from the moment you say black holes onwards

>>16933599
>>16933766
nobody cares about your celebrity crush retard

>>16933188
I thought this was due to the heisenburg uncertainty principle?

Since you cannot measure both position and velocity at the same time, that means there is always some energy in the particle that we don't know about. The call this "zero point energy" I think.