the nature of space and motion

Replies

A

Anon08/03/26, 04:14No.17030597

A "point" is a man-made abstraction. Does not exist in physical reality. Space is continuous. Things travel through it. If you go x speed for y time then you will travel xy distance. >but muh zeno's paradox Nonsense. Confuses mathematical modeling for physical reality. The mathematical model led to contradictions like that so we invented a better one.

1

A

Anon08/03/26, 04:31No.17030602

>Not answering sealions Based

1

A

Anon08/03/26, 04:51No.17030608

>If space is continuous stopped reading here

0

A

Anon08/03/26, 05:16No.17030612

It has many worlds rotating around the outer quantum of the atom while it's still physically real inside. We can't explain it. (recent words from Sean Carroll)

0

A

Anon08/03/26, 05:35No.17030617

2. Tensor Deformation Matrix ($\mathbf{R}_{\text{tensor}}$) Dictates continuous spatial distortion, volumetric shear stress, and vector field rotation along the toroidal manifold. 3. Energy Accumulation & Dual Bifurcation Function ($\mathbf{\Phi}_{\text{bifurcation}}$) Enforces lower operational bounds and governs topological branch selection when energy density breaches critical limits ($E_{\text{crit}} \ge 2.0 + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \in [0.05, 0.10]$ represents the entropic work activation margin):Branch A — Linear / Sub-Octave Filamentation ($m=1$ Mode): Under asymmetric axial strain, the localized core pinches and sheds excess circulation into a trailing filamental sub-octave tail ($1/6$ relative scale) while preserving primary core balance. Branch B — Orthogonal / Super-Octave Planar Fold ($m=2$ Mode): Under quadrupolar compression, anti-parallel core lines undergo $90^\circ$ figure-eight cross-linking, merging structural vorticity into a re-stabilized rolling ring ($1 \to 2$ daughter topology).

1

A

Anon08/03/26, 07:10No.17030670

Current evidence and our best physics theories treat space as continuous, though some theories suggest it might be discrete at a microscopic level. There have been some attempts to formulate viable discrete models of space, however none have been successful to date and even the very best attempts have ended up making some compromises in that respect — for example, in loop quantum gravity, it is areas that are quantized rather than lengths (which can still change continuously and co-vary with each other so as to keep areas discrete), while in doubly-special relativity lengths are still continuous but there is a minimum length scale. Even for these models however, there is still no empirical evidence to support them.There are also some important theoretical reasons to believe space is continuous. For example, space appears to respect Lorentz symmetry, which is a continuous symmetry; any discretization of spacetime would necessitate at least some very small violations of Lorentz symmetry, but no such violations are known to exist in nature and Lorentz symmetry appears to be very fundamental to the structure of space and time.

0

A

Anon08/03/26, 09:46No.17030704

I can elevate any confusion from this:It's all just models. Space IS NOT continuous, it IS NOT discrete, those are models. Depending on the phenomenon you are studying you chose a fitting model, or even come up with a new one.Science is just models that work well under certain circumstances. Science is not an actual true description of the real world.

5

A

Anon08/03/26, 10:14No.17030710

Space is discrete. The smallest possible unit is the planck sphere. Space therefore consists of planck spheres packed around each other. Since its geometrically impossible to pack spheres around each other leaving no gaps, and since no gap can be filled with anything smaller than a planck sphere, it logically follows that those gaps consist of non-existence. If it is assumed that planck spheres would be highly ordered then 25.95% of what we call space is actually non-existence. Some regions of space may have less than perfect ordering however.

2

A

Anon08/03/26, 11:03No.17030721

Since we shouldn't fly off into nothingness, then space is created between a body. Therefore, it would still consist of hidden variables.

0

A

Anon08/03/26, 14:04No.17030803

Why would what you apply to time also no apply to space?

1

A

Anon08/03/26, 15:16No.17030842

Jesus Christ this board is full of nothing but bots, ESLs, semi-literate morons, and disingenuous fuckwits.OP, the simple fact is no one knows. Its still an open question, as much for philosophy as science, and my guess is it will remain so for a very long time.

0

A

Anon08/03/26, 16:13No.17030864

I believe in that space and/or time is discrete. Reason being that it is the only apparent explanation that solves the paradox of the turtle and the hare.

0

A

Anon08/04/26, 07:17No.17031204

>Imagine thinking you would get a reasonable and intellectual discussion on /sci/

0

A

Anon08/04/26, 14:29No.17031345

Okay so lets phrase OP's question another way. Say you zoom in on space, dividing it into smaller volumes each time. Do you just keep on zooming in and dividing forever, or do you reach a point where it can not be divided any further?

1

A

Anon08/04/26, 16:11No.17031419

>If space is continuous then surely it must be comprised of an infinite number of points No, there are no points. you can use the idea of points to make measurements, but the points do not exist in reality and do not need to be "traversed" one by one to get from A to B.

0

A

Anon08/04/26, 16:33No.17031432

>Consider an object moving through space Why would I consider illusions when talking about reality?

1

A

Anon08/04/26, 17:23No.17031452

There is no space, there are just units of substrate. At the start any unit of the substrate can reach any other unit of the substrate immediately. But then the speed of causality starts to degrade between pairs of substrate. This is what we call space.

0

A

Anon08/04/26, 20:18No.17031514

I would say that space in itself is continuous. It's just the extension where objects are. But the space filling aether, which actually interacts with mass, should be discrete at some point. That doesn't mean that particles jump necessary, but it gets blurry.

0

A

Anon08/05/26, 04:11No.17031729

Of course space is discrete. Its the only logical explanation. If it were continuous then you would be able to divide any volume infinitely, which results in a point. Its simple math. Since a point is dimensionless it should be clearly obvious to even the most dumb mouth breathing retard that space is not comprised of points. Therefore it must be comprised of discrete volumes which can not be divided. Whether those are planck volumes or some other minimum volume is just a detail that remains to be seen. No other alternative explanation exists. But schizo fucks seem incapable of understanding even the most basic logic.

1

A

Anon08/05/26, 11:41No.17031872

Space is discrete. Everything exists within the grid. An object moving through space teleports across the grid one cube at a time.

0

A

Anon08/06/26, 12:25No.17032463

Either our understanding of physical reality is wrong or our mathematics is wrong. Because for space to be continuous it requires it to be infinitely divisible. In which case any object moving through it would be required to move through an infinity of spaces within a finite time. Which is clearly impossible. Basically its still Zeno's paradox. Fuck its been 2500 years since Zeno came up with this shit and we still can not get our heads around it

1

A

Anon08/07/26, 12:17No.17033109

Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH. The time is nearly upon us. Across the world people are waking up to the lies told by those GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES Soon we shall rise as one to retake control of mathematics for the RIGHTEOUS. And with it physics. Then the book burning shall begin in earnest, with every mention of infinity cast into the flames. This is GOD's will. Say it with me Brothers and Sisters! DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT! DEUS VULT!

0

A

Anon08/08/26, 04:33No.17033448

Its crazy that the general consensus in science is that space is continuous but simple logic dictates it is discrete. I am really weary of this debate. Cant we get like a super big atomic knife and start cutting a gigantic mutant apple in half until we finally get a slice we can no longer cut?

1

A

Anon08/08/26, 04:40No.17033450

Let the first-order language contain a sort of individuals (no special syntax required). Let constants/predicates be:Constant ss: the subject Predicates: Mind(x)Mind(x) OtherMind(x)OtherMind(x) (intended: “xx is a mind distinct from ss”) Exists(x)Exists(x) A unary “evidence” operator (as a predicate of propositions): Givens(⋅)Givens(⋅) taking a formula as argument.Define the target sentence: Sol:=∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)). Sol:=∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)).Assumptions: (A1)∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Givens(Exists(x))). (A1)∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Givens(Exists(x))). (A2)∀φ(Givens(∃xφ(x))∃xφ(x)). (A2)∀φ(Givens(∃xφ(x))∃xφ(x)). (Here φ(x) φ(x) ranges over formulas with free variable x x.)Goal: ¬∃xOtherMind(x)(equivalently, Sol in the intended reading). ¬∃xOtherMind(x)(equivalently, Sol in the intended reading).Derivation:Assume for contradiction: \exists a\,\operatorname{OtherMind}(a). \tag{1} From (1), by existential instantiation, pick an arbitrary witness cc such that: \operatorname{OtherMind}(c). \tag{2} By (A1) from (2): \neg \operatorname{Given}_s(\operatorname{Exists}(c)). \tag{3} From (2), we have OtherMind(c)Exists(c)OtherMind(c)Exists(c) as an instance of existence-introduction for the predicate OtherMindOtherMind’s intended meaning; hence: \exists x\,\operatorname{OtherMind}(x). \tag{4} By the intended link between “evidence for existence of a witness” and evidence for the existential (captured via (A2)), (3) contradicts (A2) applied to φ(x)≡OtherMind(x)φ(x)≡OtherMind(x). Therefore: ⊥.⊥. Hence: ¬∃xOtherMind(x).¬∃xOtherMind(x).So, in equivalence form: ∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)), ∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)), i.e. “only s s’s mind exists” under the definition of OtherMind OtherMind.

1

A

Anon08/08/26, 11:06No.17033540

Its continuous now shut up

0

A

Anon08/08/26, 14:06No.17033596

Its discrete.

0

A

Anon08/09/26, 12:32No.17034035

Space just is, with all the properties it has.

1

A

Anon08/09/26, 15:58No.17034100

shouldn't we be arguing whether SPACETIME is continuous or discrete? in that case, we can just argue whether time is continuous or discrete, and assume spacetime is the same. (discrete time -> discrete spacetime) i would assume time is discrete, because otherwise, you could fit a conscious brain state into an infinitesimally small fraction of time such that the brain-state is no longer conscious in that infinitesimally small time interval, and your consciousness would blink out of existence as soon as you realize this. therefore, time, and consequently spacetime itself, MUST be discrete.

0

A

Anon08/09/26, 16:05No.17034103

points are imaginary

1

A

Anon08/10/26, 04:09No.17034367

space is imaginary

0

A

Anon08/11/26, 09:23No.17034948

And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D

1

A

Anon08/13/26, 12:45No.17036101

Obviously space is made up of an infinity of points otherwise how could things move?

0

A

Anon08/14/26, 00:55No.17036323

Quantum mechanics suggests that at the ultimate foundation of reality, space is not a smooth, continuous fabric. Instead, it is made of tiny, indivisible packets or "pixels", much like a digital image when you zoom in all the way Loop Quantum Gravity is a leading physics theory attempting to describe this granular structure.It proposes that space is built from tiny, interwoven loops of gravitational fields called a spin network.These networks create discrete "chunks" of volume and area.You cannot have a volume of space smaller than a specific minimum quantum value, proving space has "atoms" of its own

1

A

Anon08/14/26, 07:20No.17036419

Space is both discrete and continuous

0

A

Anon08/16/26, 16:11No.17037461

So far of all the experiments used to support a discrete Universe none have achieved any supporting results.

0

A

Anon08/16/26, 18:09No.17037500

Imagine a 10-11 dimensional cellular automata board. Now zoom way out. More. More. See?

1

A

Anon08/17/26, 06:51No.17037754

Objects moving across distances are just monkey models. Its better to think of an object moving in a direction of a potential. That way you can subdivide the steps to infinity if the potential is always beyond the whole distance.

1

A

Anon08/17/26, 22:32No.17037938

Computational models of physics (like Wolfram's graph-based physics) suggest smooth space is just a macro-scale illusion, while the underlying reality operates via discrete updating rules on a network of relations

0

A

Anon08/18/26, 00:52No.17037982

Motion is IMPOSSIBLE.Imagine a fast man racing with a turtle. The fast man is cocky so he lets the turtle have a head start. Now he starts running. But to pass the turtle, he must first go halfway to the turtle. But then, after that, he still needs to go halfway before passing it. Then he has to do it again. He has to do this an infinitely many number of times. Of course, traveling any distance takes some amount of time. An infinite number of finite numbers added together would obviously give an infinite result, meaning passing anything must always take an infinite amount of time. Conclusion: movement is fake and gay and probably a jewish trick

5

A

Anon08/21/26, 04:20No.17039795

space is quantized

0

A

Anon08/22/26, 22:55No.17040847

Point particle Very bottom of the Planck scale Foundational, fundamental building block Geometric shape = cube A Pi quantity of Planck cubes Each individual cube carries the two forces Magnetism and color This Pi quantity of magnetized RGB cubes is riding upon a grid track lattice matrix giving us the forward/backward, left/right, up/down directional cardinality The track grid lattice provides us a separation from infinity (or the next layer down or out) something to push off against, and maintains alignment for the stability of all part movements. All of the universes Pi quantity of magnetized RGB cubes all move 1 track location, all simultaneously, giving us the wave function collapse. When the magnetized RGB cubes form into a choo choo train bar magnet configuration, nutt-to-butt, that is a photon moving 1 direction, forward It can be pulled sideways, gravitational lensed, but not pull other objects. In the beginning...the singularity was the Pi quant of cubes all connected, and the big bang separated them A black hole is a location on the grid track matrix that is broken down to smallest Planck magnetized RGB cubes completely filled with cubes with no empty track holes left to fill As the parts build larger shapes and structure, more gimbal directions of movement outside of the OG six become available as they are built, as more vector angles are usable as the lower level scale Planck parts become the track for the next larger higher tier parts to ride upon and through, all the way up to atoms, and life, planets and stars, galaxies Magnetism being presented as new forces of weak and strong nuclear, gravitation higher up the Planck scale as more vector track gimbals of movement are built. In the sense that sound waves need oxygen track fields (or materials) to use as a track to ride on and through.The energy from the big bang is now trapped in here with no way to escape so it can not form back into the OG connected configuration A Third State

0

A

Anon08/22/26, 23:00No.17040849

What You Need More?

0

A

Anon08/25/26, 05:02No.17041983

>space and movementThe only thing that moves is our mind

0

A

Anon08/25/26, 11:27No.17042048

1

A

Anon08/30/26, 09:08No.17044308

No one in this thread has stated how they conceptualize space and movement.

0

A

Anon09/01/26, 02:11No.17045212

Its continuous what do you retards find so hard to understand about that?

0

A

Anon09/03/26, 04:32No.17046091

>Planck so you already know the truth yet keep deny it for some strange reason there's no infinities that have ever been observed in nature. none. there's finite amounts of shit in any point. no reason to suspect infinite space in a finite ... space. that's just retarded. do you see infinite atoms in an atom? no. it's one fucking atom. shit's discrete >what if it isn't show infinite atoms in one atom and we talk about it >what if burden of proof

1

A

Anon09/05/26, 10:08No.17047145

I am pretty sure all physical evidence points towards the Universe being continuous, which means objects through space in point-like increments since any other sort of movement would have to be discrete.

0

A

Anon09/05/26, 10:51No.17047157

If you think about it rationally, it's unlikely that space and motion even exist as such. When you draw a plot to visualize the relationship between some variables, you don't wonder about the ontological nature of the graph's background. The actual relationship doesn't depend on it. Why assume the space you think you live in is any different? Do you have any direct evidence of space being a thing outside of perception? No. You can't have it in principle. You can only infer it by reading spatial relations into measurement data, but those are no more inherently spatial than the ones in the plot. Motion, which would be change in spatial relations, is just change.Once you rid yourself of the idea that continuous motion depends on a ghostly infinite object made up of imaginary points, I don't see what the problem is. There remains nothing explicit about continuity to pick apart.

1