Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
But they are a human concept that have been proven using the full extent of our logical facilities and, furthermore, they are a human concept that is incredibly useful. Mathematics are the reason why we are where we are today as a species and scoffing at its basics, like creating useful number systems, is beyond retarded.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
Furry_sl said:
Of course you can, but you can not describe negative numbers with real world. Concepts are more flexible than nature, and that is why you must be careful with them.
Click to expand...
Get the fuck out of here.

I shoot a cannon ball from a top of a mountain that is 100 feet high. Then i want to find out how to shoot a cannon ball from 80 feet high so i reduce my starting point by 20. I just described negative 20.
 
Furry

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,495
24,604
wormie_sl said:
But they are a human concept that have been proven using the full extent of our logical facilities and, furthermore, they are a human concept that is incredibly useful. Mathematics are the reason why we are where we are today as a species and scoffing at its basics, like creating useful number systems, is beyond retarded.
Click to expand...
And where do I say they aren't useful? Thats the supposition that you make. Infact, negative numbers and imaginary ones can be quite beautiful in describing nature.

Take the euler's formula. It's a very self evident proof. Anyone in basic level mechanical engineering classes will be able to look at it and say of course its true, it basicaly is a way of mathematically describing a half turn. It's quite simple to think of it mathematically, but the math for the actual proof is quite ugly, and allows you to do devious things. The basic reason for this is the fact that while the proof is essentially true, the I in the formula could be a half turn in any direction, or even multiple turns and then a half turn in any direction, so it is describing an indefinite concept in nature.

Infact, if you want to play around with the math by solving it for different values, the proof allows you to equate 0 to any number.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
I guess i do not understand what it is you are claiming when you say negative numbers arent real. Can we find one and point to it? No. But you cant find the number one trillion and point to it either. Are natural numbers arent real after a certain point? I mean, who has ever counted to one trillion?

All numbers are an abstraction so that fits your "human concept" idea. But it seems to me that human concepts that have been logically proven to be true are as real as it will ever get for us.
 
Furry

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,495
24,604
wormie_sl said:
I guess i do not understand what it is you are claiming when you say negative numbers arent real. Can we find one and point to it? No. But you cant find the number one trillion and point to it either.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
The Ancient_sl said:
That's purely referential.
Click to expand...
I guess? You are at 100 feet, you want to be at 80 feet. You are working with strictly the natural numbers that you know exist but you somehow need to move down 20 feet. So you create a system of numbers that satisfies properties of the natural numbers plus the additional property of having an additive inverse such that a + a' = 0, where a' is the additive inverse of a. You now have the integers (assuming 0 belongs to the natural numbers, if not, just add 0 to this new structure). Now you add the additive inverse of 20 to 100 and are now at 80 as required. You have (very crudely) constructed a number that is known as -20 hence it exists. l am not sure what referential or not has to do with anything.
 
wormie

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,963
Furry_sl said:
Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.
Click to expand...
So if i have three apples and i described this as the number 3 and then Obama comes in and takes away one of my apples. What the hell just happened to my 3?
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
So you are like those new religion people who shone away science and anything science related, but have no problem with modern medicine.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
Furry_sl said:
Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.
Click to expand...
ideas are not real either, I mean. I can't point to an idea so they must not exist. And don't get me started on the wind, or the air. Can you really point at it?
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Furry_sl said:
Sure you can. Point at the sky, the ground. Even a cell. How you partition that object determines if you could find one trillion there. Anywhere you point in nature, you will not find even -1.
Click to expand...
Wait, so negative numbers aren't a real to you because there is no physical manifestation of them? Your logic is retarded as any number positive or negative is a human prescription to a particular object at a particular frame of reference.

You may have 2 bananas, but I say you have 0.x mMol of K+, C, etc...

Edit - I should say that is how you are talking about numbers. I mean you can manipulate and generate equations that have no prescribed meaning or true "value" to them and are completely "meaningless"
 
Z

Zuuljin

Bronze Knight of the Realm
143
0
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or not enough, but I think all Furry is trying to convey is that there is a difference between how we describe something, and how that something actually is in reality. Negative numbers are useful to describe things, but they don't obviously exist in reality. Likewise, his complaint with QM is that just because it correctly explains things, doesn't mean that some of the conclusions it draws are how the universe actually works.

If I remove 4 apples from 2 apples, I'll have -2 apples. Obviously that isn't true because it's a simple concept we understand. But something complex that we don't fully understand, you start seeing things like this with Negative mass, dark matter etc. You see a headline "Dark Matter detected!" and think wow, but if you saw a headline, "Negative apples detected!" you'd think it was hogwash. I believe he's just saying be careful with the conclusions because concepts are not reality.
 
Lendarios

Lendarios

Trump's Staff
<Gold Donor>
19,360
-17,424
For a fifth dimension being, maybe the way we conceptualize the world in mathematical terms is incorrect. That may be very well be the case, but from our frame of reference what we found is the best we got. We are not saying that our current is 100% correct, and you can't argue against it; we are saying if you have a different solution, it has to pass the same test of experimentation, data collection and analysis that the option you are trying to disprove.

That is why I keep saying to him, show the experiment without tunneling, and he can't show it. He relies on malus as it were some garlic solution. Refraction can't account for the waves ignoring the secondary receptor after the second medium is introduced.
 
Valishar

Valishar

Molten Core Raider
766
424
The best and easiest example of a physical negative amounts is with electric charge. As in this isn't referential purely referential. Negative charges actually cancel out positive charges to give neutral charge.
 
pharmakos

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,239
calling negative charges "negatives" is a human construct, though. there aren't less than 0 of any of the things in that reaction. we're talking about a number of electrons higher than 0 versus a number of protons higher than 0. it just is convenient for us to consider those electrons to be less than 0 -- in actuality, though, they are not negative.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,431
2,218
Itzena_sl said:
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
Click to expand...
Half a dozen nerds putting up a good bluff about their physics knowledge in between googling sessions and the rest of us just scrolling through to see who wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.