/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #14105829

12KiB, 311x162, images (1).jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 12:46:17 2022 No.14105829 View Reply Original Report

infinity doesnt exist

prove me wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 12:48:02 No.14105834 Report

Quoted By: >>14106455

>>14105829
Disproof: OP is infinitely gay, just as his pic implies.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO C430B0CC-2F2B-4916-8E32-91AB3987 (...).jpg, 19KiB, 400x400

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 12:51:54 No.14105847 Report

Quoted By: >>14106527 >>14121502

>>14105829
Looks real to me, you can hold it in your wallet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 12:55:03 No.14105854 Report

Quoted By:

Infinity is ignorance.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO D7hEq8TU0AAyv9Q.jpg, 83KiB, 1143x519

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 12:55:52 No.14105857 Report

Quoted By: >>14105907 >>14106013 >>14106424 >>14116760 >>14121152 >>14122206

>>14105829
>prove me wrong
We can't.

That's why we have an axiom for this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 13:13:42 No.14105907 Report

Quoted By: >>14105916 >>14107748 >>14108408 >>14120165 >>14121513 >>14122132

>>14105857
To avoid clearly and rigorously laying down the theory, you resort to meaningless axioms and call it "math".

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO smug.jpg, 88KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 13:15:35 No.14105916 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105907
Guilty as charged.

Viruses don't exist

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1641139488996.jpg, 15KiB, 314x326

Viruses don't exist Sat 15 Jan 2022 13:36:11 No.14105977 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
so, you want to get new knowledge and expand your comfort zone being in remote safe space?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 13:45:23 No.14106013 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105857
What a cope, lol

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1640021721266.jpg, 197KiB, 900x856

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 14:42:41 No.14106161 Report

Quoted By: >>14106174 >>14106189 >>14110450 >>14113433 >>14120816 >>14122081

>>14105829
Assume the opposite. Everything is finite. So there is a distance which can't be split into 2. This makes no sense. Therefore infinity is real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 14:47:28 No.14106174 Report

Quoted By: >>14106396 >>14106404 >>14108901 >>14122107 >>14122139

>>14106161
1 planck length

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 14:54:54 No.14106189 Report

Quoted By: >>14106199

>>14106161
>So there is a distance which can't be split into 2
Doesn't follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:03:05 No.14106199 Report

Quoted By: >>14106203 >>14106205

>>14106189
If you can always split it into 2 that means it's infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:04:22 No.14106203 Report

Quoted By: >>14106221

>>14106199
*what* is infinite?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:04:38 No.14106205 Report

Quoted By: >>14106221

>>14106199
No it doesn't.
Every rational number can be split into 2, but rational numbers aren't infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:10:30 No.14106221 Report

Quoted By: >>14106256

>>14106203
Number of distances

>>14106205
Number of rational numbers is infinite, just like number of distances in the world, because you can always divide both by 2.

fortune

fortune Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:11:02 No.14106226 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
infinites exist in theory but in reality no entity affected by time is infinite. things unaffected by time like the electromagnetic field are infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:19:55 No.14106256 Report

Quoted By: >>14106398 >>14122155

>>14106221
>Number of distances
there's no such thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:40:13 No.14106289 Report

Quoted By: >>14106301 >>14122165

What is 100/3?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 15:43:36 No.14106301 Report

Quoted By: >>14106385

>>14106289
100/3

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:11:08 No.14106385 Report

Quoted By: >>14122165

>>14106301
But how do you divide it evenly??

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:13:59 No.14106396 Report

Quoted By: >>14108901

>>14106174
The planck length is not considered the actual smallest piece of spacetime. Spacetime is considered continuous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:15:00 No.14106398 Report

Quoted By: >>14106415

>>14106256
Cope lol
finitists literally just cope and seethe, and make no arguments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:16:18 No.14106404 Report

Quoted By: >>14108901

>>14106174
There's nothing suggesting that the Planck length is any kind of "minimum" distance. This misconception can be traced back to someone citing their own bullshit vanity press paper in it's Wikipedia article. The article no longer mentions this idea.

Planck units are simply units based off fundamental physical constants.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:19:00 No.14106415 Report

Quoted By: >>14106534 >>14106539

>>14106398
there's no need to raise arguments against made-up gibberish

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:21:23 No.14106424 Report

Quoted By: >>14106446 >>14106451 >>14122125

>>14105857
axioms are like dogmas in religion, purely faith based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:23:31 No.14106434 Report

Quoted By:

>infinity doesn't exist
>my funky seventies styling of the infinity symbol most certainly exists
if you said infinity exists
it wouldn't really change my opinion of the visual style
from my point of view
it's mix 'n' match
and y'all need to go to /gd/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:25:04 No.14106438 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
alfia is literally always invariably wrong in the P A C / L UI T head case space

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:25:57 No.14106443 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
It can be reasoned with usefully, who cares if it "exists"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:26:37 No.14106446 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106424
Exactly. Modern mathematicians are religious fanatics, they go totally apeshit whenever their faith is questioned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:28:04 No.14106451 Report

Quoted By: >>14106469 >>14106473 >>14108409

>>14106424
Axioms are just a set of premises from which you can draw conclusions, it's not that deep.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:28:33 No.14106455 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105834
debonked: if OP were infinitely gay, his homosexuality would be everlasting, contradicting OP's ability to an hero
therefore infinity doesn't exist, but it is OP's authority to end his homosexual emanation at his own discretion, creating the illusion of everlasting faggotry as long as his will sustains it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:33:02 No.14106469 Report

Quoted By: >>14106504

>>14106451
they aren't exactly premises, they are the foundations. a premise can be just a step, while an axiom doesn't have a preceding premise, it has to be taken as true in an absolute sense - there is no "if"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:34:45 No.14106473 Report

Quoted By: >>14106504

>>14106451
The axioms should be meaningful though, at least if you want the conclusions to be meaningful and not just formal symbolic derivations. Contemporary math is based on gibberish axioms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:44:09 No.14106504 Report

Quoted By: >>14106552

>>14106469
Yeah they're foundational premises that you decide to base everything off to avoid an infinite chain of "why is that true?". You can pick whatever you want as axioms and see what you get, some sets of axioms give in interesting/useful results, some don't.

>>14106473
If the resulting system is useful, which it definitely is in the case of modern mathematics, what does it matter if the axioms are "meaningful" or "realistic", whatever that's supposed to mean. One could argue that it's usefulness makes it meaningful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:52:27 No.14106527 Report

Quoted By: >>14122324

>>14105847
Pretty sue that is an internet computer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:53:50 No.14106534 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106415
made-up gibberish
Like pretending there's a largest number

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:55:00 No.14106537 Report

Quoted By: >>14116760

>>14105829
list every real number from 0 to 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:55:11 No.14106539 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106415
It's all made up gibberish. Only some made up gibberish is useful, see modern mathematics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:57:51 No.14106548 Report

Quoted By: >>14110453

>>14105829
infinity does exist

prove me wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 16:58:49 No.14106552 Report

Quoted By: >>14106557 >>14106564

>>14106504
If you start with shaky foundations, you have no way to tell whether your results are flawed, or not. It's entirely possible that ZFC proves statements about natural numbers (the smallest inductive set) which are false for what we understand by the "actual" natural numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:00:00 No.14106557 Report

Quoted By: >>14106564 >>14106623

>>14106552
>natural numbers (the smallest inductive set)
>the "actual" natural numbers

What's the difference

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:02:16 No.14106564 Report

Quoted By: >>14106611

>>14106552
>>14106557
Moreover, the idea of the "true" natural numbers is nonsensical. They would need to be defined with respect to some (ultimately arbitrary) set of axioms in any case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:06:58 No.14106591 Report

Quoted By: >>14116760

>>14105829
Infinity exists because it's defined to exist. QED

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:12:49 No.14106611 Report

Quoted By: >>14106628

>>14106564
That's entirely false. Most people believe in a preferred model of natural numbers, independent of any formal system designed to reason about them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:15:05 No.14106623 Report

Quoted By: >>14106636

>>14106557
Do you understand what it means that a statement about natural numbers is "true but unprovable"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:16:21 No.14106628 Report

Quoted By: >>14109728

>>14106611
You can continue asking "why is this true?" of any model of natural numbers and you'll eventually have to define some axiomatic base to avoid infinite regress.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:19:12 No.14106636 Report

Quoted By: >>14106648

>>14106623
I understand that some logical systems contain true but unprovable statements.

Sure some model containing something called "natural numbers" may have some true statements that are untrue in the ZFC formulation, but how can you privilege such a model with "actual" status?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 17:22:58 No.14106648 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106636
>I understand that some logical systems contain true but unprovable statements.
But what does it mean "true" in this context, can you explain it? The completeness theorem states that "true" is the same thing as "provable".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 19:41:56 No.14107173 Report

Quoted By: >>14108912 >>14109424 >>14109827 >>14109869 >>14114236 >>14116760 >>14122241 >>14124677

>>14105829
>1. a light blinks on and off forever in any pattern or nonpattern
proves infinity
>2. a light is on forever
proves infinity
>3. a light is off forever
proves infinity
>4. no other states of a light exist other than {1,2,3}
\qed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Jan 2022 22:15:25 No.14107748 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105907
holy based

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 01:50:08 No.14108408 Report

Quoted By: >>14122243

>>14105907
Axioms = blind faith

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 01:51:25 No.14108409 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106451
Exactly. Illogical, unproven, unjustified premises.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1 Planck length.jpg, 1MiB, 952x6131

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 04:54:45 No.14108901 Report

Quoted By: >>14122121 >>14122194 >>14123187 >>14124027 >>14124081 >>14125163 >>14125218 >>14125226 >>14125696

>>14106174
>>14106396
>>14106404
>1 Planck length
In almost all interpretations of quantum mechanics, yes. The Planck length is not the smallest possible length, it's just the smallest measurable length. It's the degree to which measuring the position of any object in the most accurate way physically possible (with a single photon) creates uncertainty to the new position.

Singularities, on the other hand, are infinitely dense. This means they must have either infinite mass or be infinitely small. Since we know singularities have mass (they lose it via Hawking radiation), they must be infinitely small, which is most definitely below the Planck length.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO !!GAY!!.jpg, 75KiB, 400x582

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 04:58:13 No.14108912 Report

Quoted By:

>>14107173

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 08:54:19 No.14109424 Report

Quoted By: >>14110255

>>14107173
You've just used the concept of 'forever', a concept that's just about interchangeable with infinity, to prove infinity

You brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 11:38:39 No.14109728 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106628
How exactly does this observation support your opinion that there's no such thing as "true" natural numbers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 12:10:40 No.14109782 Report

Quoted By: >>14109786 >>14109827 >>14109853 >>14116760

>>14105829
Name the biggest number you know. Then add 1 to it. Then add again, ad infinitum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 12:12:13 No.14109786 Report

Quoted By:

>>14109782
>ad infinitum.
what did he mean by this?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO additive total equals.jpg, 48KiB, 686x582

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 12:40:45 No.14109827 Report

Quoted By: >>14112801 >>14116760

>>14107173
>>14109782
>Then add again, ad infinitum.
thats a rate of change.
thats a limit.
you never reach it.
You are not yet infinite.
finite+growth < infinite.
*you will never be a woman

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 12:59:35 No.14109851 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
>infinity
what did he mean by this?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 13:01:51 No.14109853 Report

Quoted By:

>>14109782
I'm not immortal though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 13:10:12 No.14109869 Report

Quoted By: >>14122086

>>14107173
On an infinite time scale everything that can happen will happen. So at some point, you or an exact copy of you will put that lightbulb up your ass, it will shatter, and you will upload it here, or an exact copy of here, and we, or exact copies of us will laugh at you for being a fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 13:17:00 No.14109882 Report

Quoted By:

It is a false dichotomy.
Some people believe in infinity. They go to Hell for eternity, which is an infinitely long time.
Other people do not believe in infinity. They go to Heaven for eternity, which is only a short time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 16:10:41 No.14110255 Report

Quoted By: >>14121161 >>14121176

>>14109424
if the light is finite then at some point it's off forever which is state 3 you retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 17:19:14 No.14110450 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106161
"2" is a man made concept.
Math in general is man made concepts that in no way relate to the understanding of the universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 17:20:30 No.14110453 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106548
"Inifinity" is a man made concept with no connection to a real world example.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 17:44:46 No.14110539 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
as a concept, it exists, as a number, it does not.
infinity is not a number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 22:09:54 No.14111396 Report

Quoted By: >>14116760

>>14105829
this is the most retarded thing to ask for... I can't obviously proof it to you through experience so what the fuck do you want ? Everybody knows that you can not proof it through thinking, too.... but if you are retarded let me say you at least this : Being has to be infinite, that means there always is something and never nothing... because otherwise it would switch. between nothing and something but at least this process of nothing and something would be infinite you faggot of a fagg

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 22:30:25 No.14111473 Report

Quoted By: >>14111690 >>14111936 >>14116760 >>14122255

>>14105829
If a thing is infinite, then that thing proves infinity.
If a thing is finite, then the lack of that thing proves infinity.
Infinity deniers get blown the fuck out either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 23:48:32 No.14111690 Report

Quoted By: >>14111698

>>14111473
>if infinity then infinity, if not infinity then infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Jan 2022 23:51:15 No.14111698 Report

Quoted By: >>14111990 >>14113354 >>14113378

>>14111690
>if infinite thing then infinity, if finite thing then infinity
fixed for u tard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:19:08 No.14111936 Report

Quoted By: >>14111964

>>14111473
wrong board
>>>/lit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:24:57 No.14111964 Report

Quoted By: >>14111985

>>14111936
not an argument, proof stands

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:29:51 No.14111985 Report

Quoted By: >>14111991

>>14111964
no one is interested in your posts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:31:28 No.14111990 Report

Quoted By: >>14111997 >>14122259

>>14111698
"lack" is not a standardized unit of measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:31:37 No.14111991 Report

Quoted By:

>>14111985
(You)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:33:12 No.14111997 Report

Quoted By: >>14112006

>>14111990
infinity isn’t a measurement

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:36:55 No.14112006 Report

Quoted By: >>14112017

>>14111997
its called a "limit", anon.
you never reach it,anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 01:39:43 No.14112017 Report

Quoted By: >>14112801

>>14112006
of course, if you did it would be finite

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 06:08:41 No.14112801 Report

Quoted By: >>14113341

>>14112017
see >>14109827

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 06:29:49 No.14112841 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
it exist but just in recurent addition sense, not as a complete being. Cantor was a charlatan and all math inconsistencies stem from set theory because set theory is fundamentally flaved. Get rekt Hilbert.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 08:02:57 No.14112998 Report

Quoted By: >>14113203 >>14122264

If there is no infinity than what does the scale read when your mom steps on it? It's an axiom for a reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 10:16:01 No.14113203 Report

Quoted By:

>>14112998
>what does the scale read when your mom steps on it
$(\exists S)( \emptyset \in S \wedge (\forall x \in S)( \{ x \} \cup x \in S ))$

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:12:42 No.14113296 Report

Quoted By: >>14113332

Natural numbers don't exist. It's apple and another apple, not "two apples".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:27:00 No.14113332 Report

Quoted By: >>14113336

>>14113296
"apple and another apple" is the definition of "two apples"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:28:11 No.14113336 Report

Quoted By: >>14113348

>>14113332
lol show me a "2"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:28:55 No.14113341 Report

Quoted By: >>14113354

>>14112801
who's adding anything retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:31:11 No.14113348 Report

Quoted By: >>14113363

>>14113336
||

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:34:02 No.14113354 Report

Quoted By: >>14113358

>>14113341
this many posts since "my" first response was to this post >>14111698.
so whats changed?
you're a different anon?
you genuinely think infinite+growth = infinity?

whats your deal?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:36:37 No.14113358 Report

Quoted By: >>14113378

>>14113354
that's my post, what the fuck does infinite growth have to do with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:40:08 No.14113363 Report

Quoted By: >>14113605 >>14122266

>>14113348
>muh pixel sticks are 2
mental illness

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 11:45:25 No.14113378 Report

Quoted By: >>14113417

>>14113358
>that's my post, what the fuck does infinite growth have to do with it
eternal-growth that starts finite can not grow to infinity.
>>14111698 >if infinite thing then infinity, if finite thing then infinity
is FALSE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:03:00 No.14113417 Report

Quoted By: >>14113421 >>14116760 >>14116767 >>14122273

>>14113378
that's not what the post says. to paraphrase another anon's example, say there's a light which is either on or off, it doesn't matter.
if you prove the light doesn't stop turning on and off you get infinite switching
if you prove the light is only on for a finite time you get infinite off
if you prove the light is only off for a finite time you get infinite on
you can’t prove any one of those things but no other outcomes exist so you always get an infinite outcome which proves infinity. growth or accumulation has nothing to do with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:04:38 No.14113421 Report

Quoted By: >>14113435

>>14113417
>if infinity then infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:07:42 No.14113433 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106161
you would just have to split it unevenly.
i fail to see how this disproves infinity not being real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:08:20 No.14113435 Report

Quoted By: >>14113447 >>14116760

>>14113421
no, if finite on then infinite off and vv.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:11:21 No.14113447 Report

Quoted By: >>14113476

>>14113435
>if finite on then infinite off
prove it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:18:59 No.14113476 Report

Quoted By: >>14113497 >>14116760

>>14113447
finite on means it stops being on and is never on again. never on again is equivalent in every way to forever off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:23:14 No.14113497 Report

Quoted By: >>14113513

>>14113476
>never on again is equivalent in every way to forever off.
And how does this prove infinity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:29:00 No.14113513 Report

Quoted By: >>14113712 >>14116085 >>14116760 >>14122278

>>14113497
off forever means the off doesn't end, doesn't end means infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 12:57:47 No.14113605 Report

Quoted By:

>>14113363
>can I have {Ø,{Ø}} apples, please

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 13:07:26 No.14113646 Report

Quoted By: >>14116760 >>14122285

>>14105829
if infinity doesn't exist, that would mean this occasion of a world is the only time it happened and will always be the only time... before was nothing and afterwards is nothing... so the world and being itself was not infinite... dont you think that is the least plausible thing to believe ? Isn't it much more plausible to believe being itself is infinite... or maybe even to believe it switches infinitely between being and not being... even it was only not being (nothingness) it would be kind of infinite because it would never change to being... but okay let us not say not being or nothingness can actually be something and therefore be infinite... you get my point...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sci.jpg, 101KiB, 1024x1024

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 13:26:12 No.14113712 Report

Quoted By: >>14113770

>>14113513
you will never be a woman

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 13:26:46 No.14113713 Report

Quoted By:

It’s all in a platonic relationship anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 13:40:26 No.14113770 Report

Quoted By: >>14113909

>>14113712
>has tranny porn saved on computer
ngmi

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1628296783232.gif, 2MiB, 720x404

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 14:19:02 No.14113909 Report

Quoted By:

>>14113770

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 14:28:27 No.14113957 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
It means you can't define it in relation to something else. Like an unfocused lens, its out of range.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 15:36:50 No.14114233 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
Then whats the biggest value? Infinity is a concept not a thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 15:37:09 No.14114236 Report

Quoted By: >>14114278 >>14116628 >>14116760

>>14107173
>if time is infinite and time exists then something infinite exists
>something infinite exists therefore infinity exists

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 15:40:48 No.14114245 Report

Quoted By: >>14122096

>>14105829
What do you mean by exist and infinity?

It would be impossible to disprove your claim for some interpretations and easy to disprove with others, so there’s no meaningful way to proceed without stipulating some definitions.

Explain your claim first, then we’ll dismantle it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 15:47:40 No.14114278 Report

Quoted By: >>14115913 >>14116612 >>14116760 >>14120155

>>14114236
Clearest attempt at a counterargument so far but if time turns out to be finite then the light blinks off never to blink on again => state 3 => proves infinity.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1608348035763.webm, 2MiB, 640x340

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 21:27:03 No.14115913 Report

Quoted By: >>14116146

>>14114278

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 22:08:32 No.14116085 Report

Quoted By:

>>14113513
meds

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 22:22:56 No.14116146 Report

Quoted By: >>14116511

>>14115913
>filled with dried cum
ywnbaw and you will never have sex with a man

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 22:46:54 No.14116248 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
> infinity doesnt exist
For you. It is an abstract concept which most people cannot imagine, so for them it literally doesn't exist (but then it exists even for them as god exists for atheists: as some concept other people consider existing, q.e.d.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 23:49:40 No.14116511 Report

Quoted By: >>14116550

>>14116146
>you will never have sex with a man
no I will not, and your hippy science is drool.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Jan 2022 23:59:45 No.14116550 Report

Quoted By: >>14116563

>>14116511
you're sick dude, you fantasize about dried cum. just 41 yourself already

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:02:06 No.14116563 Report

Quoted By: >>14116584

>>14116550
more drool from the hippy

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:09:27 No.14116584 Report

Quoted By: >>14116591

>>14116563
keep drooling hippy

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:10:38 No.14116591 Report

Quoted By: >>14116609

>>14116584
keep hipping drooler

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:15:41 No.14116609 Report

Quoted By: >>14116626

>>14116591
>droool

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO weeeeeeee!!!.gif, 87KiB, 394x427

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:16:59 No.14116612 Report

Quoted By: >>14116618

>>14114278

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:18:35 No.14116618 Report

Quoted By: >>14116626

>>14116612
>drooolers mad

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1622840549336.jpg, 24KiB, 326x217

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:20:54 No.14116626 Report

Quoted By: >>14116674

>>14116609
>>14116618

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1612956798230.jpg, 222KiB, 1240x786

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:22:13 No.14116628 Report

Quoted By:

>>14114236

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:33:35 No.14116674 Report

Quoted By:

>>14116626

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:50:35 No.14116734 Report

Quoted By: >>14122288

Only mentally ill people believe in infinity. Cantor was a lunatic who thew shit at the wall lol.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO you are here.png, 149KiB, 493x487

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:56:16 No.14116760 Report

Quoted By: >>14116767

>>14114278
>>14114236
>>14113646
>>14113513
>>14113476
>>14113435
>>14113417
>>14111473
>>14111396
>>14109782
>>14107173
>>14106591
>>14105857
>if infinity then infinity
you are all this >>14106537..
>if I spend forever counting, then the "infinite" is "me" myself counting forever like a massive tard.
you're all this >>14109827.
meds now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:59:09 No.14116767 Report

Quoted By: >>14116799

>>14116760
stop linking to your own post over and over again, i already debunked your tranny shit here >>14113417

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 00:59:34 No.14116769 Report

Quoted By: >>14116772

x + 1 = x + 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:01:38 No.14116772 Report

Quoted By: >>14116778

>>14116769
“O God, I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space.”

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:02:48 No.14116778 Report

Quoted By:

>>14116772
The one mirror sees itself
the one mirror reflects itself

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PEER-REVIEW.jpg, 48KiB, 550x364

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:10:32 No.14116799 Report

Quoted By: >>14116823

>>14116767
your relevance is hippy science using storyline literature imagined during a bucket bong session with the sociology department..

>we've set an "energy" to exist forever so it is infinite... we have an infinite light source...
>we have infinite light energy...
yet, at no time can I make a weapon and shoot infinite light energy at an enemy and blind him...
you do not have an infinite light source.
you have useless mental-babble story telling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:19:58 No.14116823 Report

Quoted By: >>14116840 >>14116856 >>14122291

>>14116799
so according to you the light will go off and never turn back on again, drooler, which proves infinity

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO the infinite.gif, 283KiB, 220x162

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:25:58 No.14116840 Report

Quoted By: >>14116851 >>14122292

>>14116823
>I will stop living and never turn back on again, which proves me infinity.
DERP

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:27:46 No.14116851 Report

Quoted By: >>14116873

>>14116840
yes, according to you, you'll be dead forever which proves infinity

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO forever.jpg, 17KiB, 261x193

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:29:41 No.14116856 Report

Quoted By: >>14116860

>>14116823
>the light will go off and never turn back on again, drooler, which proves infinity
>its still around here somewhere

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:30:47 No.14116860 Report

Quoted By: >>14116873

>>14116856
mad and drooling

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO BRAINSTORMING.png, 117KiB, 500x544

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:33:46 No.14116873 Report

Quoted By: >>14116877

>>14116851
>>14116860

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 01:34:21 No.14116877 Report

Quoted By:

>>14116873

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 19:37:14 No.14119818 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
https://ia801305.us.archive.org/30/items/reneguenon/1946%20-%20The%20Metaphysical%20Principles%20of%20the%20Infinitesimal%20Calculus.pdf

read chapters 1 and 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 19:49:27 No.14119864 Report

Quoted By: >>14119908

>>14105829
>Create friction-less loop
>Put in space
>Profit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 20:00:37 No.14119908 Report

Quoted By:

>>14119864
how are you profiting from a frictionless loop?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 20:57:55 No.14120155 Report

Quoted By: >>14120491

>>14114278
The problem is with the definition of time. Time doesn't exist either - it's just an useful abstraction to describe the rate of change, speed etc. When things stop changing time will cease to exist as well - but it's not the description of our physical world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 20:59:53 No.14120165 Report

Quoted By: >>14121128

>>14105907
Yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 22:22:33 No.14120491 Report

Quoted By:

>>14120155
>When things stop changing
Proves infinity via state 2 or 3:
>2. freeze frame => on forever => state 2 => proves infinity
>3. cut => off forever => state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 18 Jan 2022 23:49:28 No.14120816 Report

Quoted By: >>14120977 >>14121091 >>14122297 >>14122358

>>14106161
Ah yes, but then there is a problem for the concept of nothing. Because you cannot split nothing into two. 0/2 = 0, nothing divided is just itself. So if you accept infinity, you cannot accept the concept of nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 00:34:44 No.14120977 Report

Quoted By:

>>14120816
>if you accept infinity, you cannot accept the concept of nothing
not him but you're wrong since accepting nothing is state 3 which literally proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 00:59:20 No.14121091 Report

Quoted By:

>>14120816
you are right, ignore the other anon.
He's a teenager.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:06:52 No.14121128 Report

Quoted By:

>>14120165
how do you get infinity from axioms?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:10:44 No.14121152 Report

Quoted By: >>14121214 >>14122198

>>14105857
That's an iterative process, not an actual infinity. It can produce as large a set as time and space allow, but never infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:13:03 No.14121161 Report

Quoted By: >>14121199 >>14121395

>>14110255
Only if you assume that time exists forever, which is once again the same mistake.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Guardian of FOREVER.jpg, 125KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:16:13 No.14121176 Report

Quoted By:

>>14110255
I will keep the light safe forever, never again shall it be plugged in and switched on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:20:25 No.14121199 Report

Quoted By: >>14122305

>>14121161
So you are telling us that time stops?
What happens after that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:22:55 No.14121214 Report

Quoted By: >>14121262

>>14121152
How do you determine whether a given infinity is an actual infinity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:34:58 No.14121262 Report

Quoted By: >>14121353

>>14121214
By disproving all conceivable bounds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 01:54:40 No.14121353 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaR6va7eeDo
Infinity = actual
eternal = potential

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:04:15 No.14121395 Report

Quoted By: >>14121399

>>14121161
I'm not assuming anything other than the poster's example of the light being finite, which means that it will be off and that there will be no end to its being off, which proves infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:05:21 No.14121399 Report

Quoted By: >>14121419

>>14121395
Infinity = actual
eternal = potential

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:09:20 No.14121419 Report

Quoted By: >>14121445

>>14121399
if the question is whether i can give you infinity now then obviously the answer is no. i can prove it exists by exclusion and attrition, as i've done, but i can't prove what form it takes nor can anyone else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:15:33 No.14121445 Report

Quoted By: >>14121446

>>14121419
>if the question is whether i can give you infinity now then obviously the answer is no
Then the answer to OPs question is no.
>i can prove it exists by exclusion and attrition, as i've done, but i can't prove what form it takes nor can anyone else.
Potential + 50cents will buy you a cup of coffee.

two different words.
buy a dictionary, hippy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:15:54 No.14121446 Report

Quoted By: >>14121482

>>14121445
>droool

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO not INFINITE.png, 19KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:22:56 No.14121482 Report

Quoted By: >>14121487 >>14123721

>>14121446
Its a limit, you backwards halfwit.
you approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:24:46 No.14121487 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121482

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:28:31 No.14121502 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105847
That's just a figure 8. Nothing infinite about it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO NJW.png, 324KiB, 882x889

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 02:30:05 No.14121513 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105907
>To avoid clearly and rigorously laying down the theory, you resort to meaningless axioms and call it "math".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:39:17 No.14121942 Report

Quoted By: >>14121954 >>14121969 >>14121994 >>14122114

>>14105829
Zeno's paradoxes show tons of infinities in nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:47:58 No.14121954 Report

Quoted By: >>14121964

>>14121942
more endless divisions horseshit
>what is planck?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:53:14 No.14121964 Report

Quoted By: >>14121973 >>14121977 >>14121983 >>14122111

>>14121954
>(planck length / 2)
Now what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:55:57 No.14121969 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121942
>loop is an example of infinity
No

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:56:35 No.14121973 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121964
>(planck length / 2)
D.N.E

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 04:57:59 No.14121977 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121964
universe is discrete.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO not INFINITE.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:00:24 No.14121983 Report

Quoted By: >>14122200 >>14122328 >>14123721

>>14121964
Its a limit.
You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:09:33 No.14121994 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121942
Paradoxes only show that your assumptions are wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:41:19 No.14122076 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
You are correct. There is no evidence that an infinite amount of anything exists in the real world. Anyone who says otherwise is committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:42:37 No.14122081 Report

Quoted By: >>14122109

>>14106161
That’s not true because matter cannot be divided an infinite amount of times. Eventually you would hit the smallest particle that can no longer be divided.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:44:35 No.14122086 Report

Quoted By: >>14122108

>>14109869
>On an infinite time scale everything that can happen will happen.
That isn’t true because there is not an infinite amount of energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:47:49 No.14122092 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
Book a bufo alvarius ceremony in Mexico. You could never observe infinity for obvious reasons... You can't seperate yourself from it to be able to observe it; things must appear finite or they don't exist yet infinity must contain them or it wouldn't be infinite. I.e. green can't exist if it is also blue and red and yellow at the same time, it'd overlap.

You can become aware of something which has absolutely no spatial boundary though, and resides in eternity. That's the best you can do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:48:51 No.14122096 Report

Quoted By:

>>14114245
Shut up retard. There is nothing epistemologically ambiguous about his statement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:53:13 No.14122107 Report

Quoted By: >>14122109

>>14106174
Just because you can make a measurement in 1 plancks length does not mean that it is possible to physically divide matter into something as small as a plancks length.

When you make a measurement all you are doing is created an abstraction and just because something exists as an abstraction does not mean that it exists in the real world. There are plenty of examples of abstractions that are impossible in the real physical world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:53:51 No.14122108 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122086
If energy can just appear out of nowhere then there is infinite amounts of it. If energy can't then its already been around for an infinitely long time so there is still technically infinite amounts of it. Atleast in the sense needed to fulfil "anything that can happen, will happen".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:54:23 No.14122109 Report

Quoted By: >>14122115

>>14122081
>>14122107
Matter is discrete but space is continuous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:54:37 No.14122111 Report

Quoted By: >>14122307

>>14121964
You are making an abstraction. Just because you made an abstraction doesn't mean its something that is real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:55:38 No.14122114 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121942
List 1 that doesn't commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO FIGHT!! FIGHT!! FIGHT!! .jpg, 301KiB, 946x892

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:56:17 No.14122115 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122109

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:58:48 No.14122121 Report

Quoted By: >>14122133

>>14108901
It's the smallest possible MEASURABLE length.

Just because you can measure something that small does not mean that there is anything that exists in the real physical world that can be divided into something that small.
Why is /sci/ filled with a bunch of pop sci retards?? Does anyone here have a real education??

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 05:58:48 No.14122122 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
It is up to you to prove yourself right by proving there is a last number and final point on the real number line rather than the number line extending to infinity as the number line is currently defined such that infinity exists by definition of the real number line prefacto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:00:00 No.14122125 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106424
Like OP's attempt at forcing an axiom that states infinity doesn't exist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:01:54 No.14122132 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105907
OP's statement is axiomatic in nature with zero mathematical foundation to prove it and no way to have the current real number set without it and no way to reduce it to something more alphabetical and terminating in nature than numerical with infinite ordered growth potential.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:02:09 No.14122133 Report

Quoted By: >>14122152

>>14122121
>Just because you can measure something that small does not mean that there is anything that exists in the real physical world that can be divided into something that small.
That article clearly argues that Planck isn't the "actual" smallest unit, because it was made up by people..
He also points out a few examples of units that are clearly smaller than the Planck scale.

Why is /sci/ filled with a bunch of pop sci retards whom can't read before posting cringe?? Does anyone here have a real education??

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:03:12 No.14122139 Report

Quoted By: >>14122143 >>14122146

>>14106174
0.5 planck length
That was easy to half.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:04:47 No.14122143 Report

Quoted By: >>14122190

>>14122139
>0.5 planck length
>That was easy to half.
that looks like a measurement!!
Planck is the smallest "measurable" unit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:05:48 No.14122146 Report

>>14122139
Planck/2 = 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:06:31 No.14122152 Report

Quoted By: >>14122156 >>14122169 >>14122316

>>14122133
Go work on your reading comprehension skills retard. You are talking about units of measurement not real things that exist in the real world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:07:09 No.14122155 Report

Quoted By: >>14122171

>>14106256
So there aren't a number of different distances between yourself and all the different capital cities in the world, its all just the same distance, you are one capital unit away from each capital in each different country of the world?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:07:16 No.14122156 Report

Quoted By: >>14122168

>>14122152
the universe is discrete, dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:08:25 No.14122165 Report

Quoted By:

>>14106289
>>14106385
33 and 1/3

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:08:39 No.14122168 Report

Quoted By: >>14122174

>>14122156
You are commuting the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. I'm sorry your high school science class didn't cover metaphysics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:09:21 No.14122169 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122152
lmao, that other anon is arguing that you can't forever divide anything..
He's stating the same thing as you, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:10:02 No.14122171 Report

Quoted By: >>14122187

>>14122155
I get what you are saying. That spacetime is continuous. There are truly infinite possible distances, including distances smaller than a planck length, because spacetime is continuous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:10:59 No.14122174 Report

Quoted By: >>14122176

>>14122168
Quantum gravity says you're a tard.
There is a finite amount you are not able to further divide.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:11:42 No.14122176 Report

Quoted By: >>14122194

>>14122174
That's not what a planck length is at all anon... Just divide it by 2... It's that easy...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:14:19 No.14122183 Report

Quoted By: >>14122194

>>14122146
No, according to google, 1.616255(18)e?35/2 = 1.4546295e-34 m

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:15:37 No.14122187 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122171
>the distance between two planck lengths is so small, it is infinite
Movement would be impossible if you had to move infinite distance for every planck length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:17:16 No.14122190 Report

Quoted By: >>14122200

>>14122143
Nobody said anything about measurement, they said that distance could not be divided in half, but it can be because its just a number that has a value which is half of its value, like every other number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:18:05 No.14122194 Report

Quoted By: >>14122210 >>14122421

>>14122183
>>14122176
Planck is a "placeholder" until we know what the actual smallest unit is.
Thats what the article here >>14108901 actually states.

You can not divide energy by two if its below that level..
it will equal 0.0

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:18:47 No.14122198 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121152
>being a nigger
Potential infinity is still infinity. There's also perfectly physically realizable actual infinities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:19:50 No.14122200 Report

Quoted By: >>14122213

>>14122190
>like every other number.
if its below that minimum number..
then reduces it equals zero.

all things are limited in their minimum...
IF you're just talking numbers then >>14121983.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:22:07 No.14122206 Report

Quoted By:

how has everyone come to the conclusion that they have to divide the planck length when >>14105857 already notes a process that produces infinity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:24:57 No.14122210 Report

Quoted By: >>14122221

>>14122194
>You can not divide energy by two if its below that level.
Yes you can, google's calculator had no problem carrying out a division on the value of a planck's length while producing a nonzero answer, your "placeholder" doesn't work how you want it to, you are delusional regarding the smallest unit value because it surely is not a planck length since it can be divided fine with a sufficient calculator and you can not come up with any possible number than is indivisible other than 0 itself and that indivisibility is only by axiomatic definition through the zero identity definition x*0=0 which no other number has, especially not the definition of a planck length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:26:12 No.14122213 Report

Quoted By: >>14122221

>>14122200
>if its below that minimum number..
>then reduces it equals zero.
No, the only division that reduces to zero is when zero itself is being divided by any number, but only because that is how zero is defined with the axiomatic zero identity x*0=0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:29:08 No.14122221 Report

Quoted By: >>14122228 >>14122230 >>14122421

>>14122210
>>14122213
if you divide with a calculator then its just numbers, you retarded nigger..

if it an "actually" existing thing "noun" then it has a smallest possible unit...
if you try to half that "thing" (noun) then both halves vanish; they no longer exist, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:29:42 No.14122223 Report

Quoted By:

Infinity exists conceptually but not in the natural world. Just like Harry Potter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:31:52 No.14122228 Report

Quoted By: >>14122302 >>14122343

>>14122221
What are you dividing when you are dividing distance? Space. Space is continuous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:33:14 No.14122230 Report

Quoted By: >>14122321

>>14122221
>if you divide with a calculator then its just numbers, you retarded nigger..
That is all values are, dumdum, a number and a value are the exact same thing.

>if it an "actually" existing thing "noun" then it has a smallest possible unit...
>if you try to half that "thing" (noun) then both halves vanish; they no longer exist, stupid.
No, your keyword is try, if you can't half it, it will say hole, it won't just magically turn into nothing because you are not able to half it, but plancks length doesn't have that problem because the way it is defined as a particular value, there is no problem reducing that value by half and producing two values whose sum adds up to a planck length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:38:19 No.14122241 Report

Quoted By: >>14122847

>>14107173
>forever
Nope, it can only blink until the heat death of the local group at the very most until the heat death of the universe, not forever, and it had to start at some point, again not forever or infinite, finite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:40:35 No.14122243 Report

Quoted By:

>>14108408
Axioms are apparent through direct observation, you just can not prove direct observation, it can only be observed, you can not objectively prove you are experiencing something rather than nothing by assuming experience is something, you can only bear witness to your experience as accurately as language will allow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:47:47 No.14122255 Report

Quoted By:

>>14111473
If something is infinite, if proves something can be infinite.
If you examine every possible thing and find they are all finite, it still proves nothing is infinite.
Infinity deniers get blown the fuck out either way since there is a thing that is always proved to be infinite either way, whether it be something in particular or nothing itself that is proven infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:48:48 No.14122259 Report

Quoted By: >>14122328

>>14111990
It is a mathematical function, a synonym for negation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:50:53 No.14122264 Report

Quoted By:

>>14112998
It depends on the upper limit of the scale, it will just keep spinning in a circle until it lands on some point, then you just could how many times the scale spun, multiply that by the upper limit and add the number it finally landed on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:52:30 No.14122266 Report

Quoted By:

>>14113363
Are you one of those oof goofs who thinks a number is the symbol used to represent a number instead of the value the symbol represents?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 06:59:12 No.14122273 Report

Quoted By: >>14122862

>>14113417
>if you prove the light is only on for a finite time you get infinite off
No, the universe began at a finite time in the past and will cease in a finite time int the future, not an infinite, it was off for a finite amount of time, the time the elements in the light break down and it can no longer be called a light minus the time it was last turned on added to the time when the light projection device was originally manufactured subtracted from the time the light was first turned on.

>if you prove the light is only off for a finite time you get infinite on
No again you don't, you can't actually prove there was infinite time before the light was manufactured or that the light can exist for an infinitely long period of time, you are just making assumptions about the length of time a light bulb can possibly exists that prove your original assumptions about infinity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:01:37 No.14122278 Report

Quoted By: >>14122855

>>14113513
If you turn the light off by smashing the bulb, the bulb is not off forever, the bulb stopped existing, no bulb can last forever (unless you can prove there is some manufacturing process that indicates otherwise), they will all eventually get smashed by the environment or other agents in the environment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:04:34 No.14122285 Report

Quoted By:

>>14113646
>before was nothing and afterwards is nothing
>Isn't it much more plausible to believe being itself is infinite
Nothing is a value, it is still part of the number line, even an empty dimension/set contains itself, and since any dimension/set can be at a state of nothing, every dimension is equally infinite in its nothingness, at the very least.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:08:28 No.14122288 Report

Quoted By:

>>14116734
How many mentally ill people can possibly ever exist in total, what is the upper limit to mental illness if not infinity?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:10:28 No.14122291 Report

Quoted By: >>14122862

>>14116823
No, the light bulb will stop existing before any infinite measurement can be made because no light bulbs or anything else for that matter are infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:11:32 No.14122292 Report

Quoted By:

>>14116840
No, you will only be dead until the heat death of the universe, not forever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:13:28 No.14122297 Report

Quoted By: >>14122326

>>14120816
>you cannot split nothing into two. 0/2 = 0,
It looks like you just split it into two without violating any logic to me, 0 = 0 + 0, I did it too, it was pretty simple.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO my ass, it is.jpg, 329KiB, 946x892

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:15:50 No.14122302 Report

Quoted By: >>14122343 >>14122372

>>14122228
>Space is continuous.
yeh, my ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:16:54 No.14122305 Report

Quoted By:

>>14121199
The process of measuring the stoppage would be interrupted before any result could be produced because there is no measurement device that could survive a stoppage of time because all sensors are finite in nature.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:18:34 No.14122307 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122111
The planck length itself is just an abstraction of value, if you don't like using it as an example, this reply chain was pointless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:22:06 No.14122316 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122152
No, he is not the one who brought up planck lengths.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:23:40 No.14122321 Report

Quoted By: >>14122329

>>14122230
>That is all values are, dumdum, a number and a value are the exact same thing.
then its not a fucking measurement of anything, is it, stupid!!
>there is no problem reducing that value by half and producing two values whose sum adds up to a planck length.
if you reduce any collection of energy you have then half it so some of those parts are less than the minimum discrete amount, they become zero..
you no longer have anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:24:45 No.14122324 Report

Quoted By: >>14122348

>>14106527
>an internet computer
We as a species have become so advanced, that we have a language greatly surpassing our understanding of the universe and our own civilization. We have words that describe any phenomenon, but the brain is not equipped to understand 100% of these words. We are specialized, which results in self-important individuals confidently stringing words together that make absolutely no sense.

What object would be classified as an internet computer? According to the Oxford dictionary, the internet is "a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols." So to say one device could "compute the internet" or be an "internet computer" is absolute gibberish. This is the condition of the human species, and this is the same condition that causes humans to use words such as "nuclear" as a noun instead of an adjective, relating to the nucleus of an atom, or in general the center of a group of objects.

We humans are so self-important, yet so lacking in critical information in the topics we pretend to be experts in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:25:23 No.14122326 Report

Quoted By: >>14122334

>>14122297
no, it means you have nothing to divide in the first place, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:27:09 No.14122328 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122259
>it means "-"....
if you subtract everything then you will end up with nothing.
otherwise >>14121983...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:27:45 No.14122329 Report

Quoted By: >>14122332

>>14122321
It is a measurement of value, the thing we are talking about ITT.

> it so some of those parts are less than the minimum discrete amount, they become zero..
Energy can not be created or destroyed, it doesn't get destroyed just because your device has some minimum threshold value that can't measure it because it transfers too much energy to the measurement to do its job without interfering with the results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:29:30 No.14122332 Report

Quoted By: >>14122338

>>14122329
it means energy can ONLY exist as discrete units..
dividing further down from that minimum discrete unit is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

it can't be broken down any further.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:29:49 No.14122334 Report

Quoted By: >>14122340 >>14122406

>>14122326
Yes and you can divide nothing by anything (other than nothing itself) infinitely because of the zero identity along with the communicative multiplication identity. You don't seem to understand that nothing itself is a value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:31:23 No.14122338 Report

Quoted By: >>14122345

>>14122332
>dividing further down from that minimum discrete unit is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
It is impossible for your device to measure the thing, it doesn't mean your device somehow destroys energy below a certain threshold because just because it isn't sophisticated to make a measurement below that threshold, it means your device has limits down to a certain threshold.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:31:59 No.14122340 Report

Quoted By: >>14122349

>>14122334
great, now here I give you nothing..
now turn it into enough something to give everyone on Earth too much to contain...
or fuck off, schizoid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:32:10 No.14122343 Report

Quoted By: >>14122345 >>14122347

>>14122302
>>>14122228
>>Space is continuous.
>yeh, my ass.

Your rear end is a discontinuous Black Hole leading to your brain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:33:01 No.14122345 Report

Quoted By: >>14122354

>>14122338
>It is impossible for your device to measure the thing
No, it means no such thing exists
we live in a discrete universe, stupid.>>14122343

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1613356564379.jpg, 118KiB, 1129x1200

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:34:27 No.14122347 Report

Quoted By: >>14122379

>>14122343
so where is this Theory of Everything able to keep space continuous?
Doesn't farking work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:34:47 No.14122348 Report

Quoted By: >>14122673

>>14122324
Or maybe you are just retarded and lack the reading comprehension skills to understand that he is just talking about a computer that is connected to the internet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:34:59 No.14122349 Report

Quoted By: >>14122352

>>14122340
>great, now here I give you nothing..
Fine, thanks, I can divide that into two equal units of nothing and give nothing to two nearby people now too, but there just isn't enough time for me talk give nothing to every single person on earth and wait for them to give nothing to everyone else too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:35:53 No.14122352 Report

Quoted By: >>14122358

>>14122349
>I've got nothing
yeh, no shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:36:54 No.14122354 Report

Quoted By: >>14122360

>>14122345
No, you device has limits, the limits exist, you know it is impossible to try to use your device to measure anything smaller than its threshold, otherwise your mom could just buy a truck scale that only weights in tons and pretend like her 400 pound ass weighs nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:38:36 No.14122358 Report

Quoted By: >>14122361 >>14122366

>>14122352
Yea and I can divide it into two equal nothings without any effort at all which means >>14120816 is wrong and nothing can be easily be split into two equal units of nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:39:02 No.14122360 Report

Quoted By: >>14122369

>>14122354
>No, you device has limits, the limits exist, you know it is impossible to try to use your device to measure anything smaller than its threshold,
that is Planck, dumbass.

the "actual" minimum is unknown..
nothing exists between 0.0 and that "actual" minimum value.
You're a spastic whom doesn't understand what a discrete universe means.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 404.gif, 347KiB, 500x375

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:40:06 No.14122361 Report

Quoted By: >>14122373

>>14122358
>into two equal nothings
and nothing is all you'll ever have.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO power of nothing.jpg, 6KiB, 191x264

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:42:07 No.14122366 Report

Quoted By: >>14122381

>>14122358

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:43:02 No.14122369 Report

Quoted By: >>14122376

>>14122360
>the "actual" minimum is unknown..
> 0.0
Then why reference absolute zero?

>nothing exists between 0.0 and that "actual" minimum value.
Which would mean you are defining 0.0 as the actual minimum value if there is no other value between the two.

>You're a spastic whom doesn't understand what a discrete universe means.
You have too much water in your brain to understand that zero is a discrete value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:44:02 No.14122372 Report

Quoted By: >>14122380

>>14122302
You just completely contradicted yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:44:02 No.14122373 Report

Quoted By: >>14122380

>>14122361
Yes and it can keep being split into two equal parts of nothing forever because as you pointed out 0/2=0.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ........png, 79KiB, 226x256

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:44:51 No.14122376 Report

Quoted By: >>14122386 >>14122390

>>14122369
>zero is a discrete value.
and the next discrete value is "the minimum" value..
no value exists between zero and the minimum value...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:45:50 No.14122379 Report

Quoted By: >>14122387

>>14122347
Where are the gaps in space? Prove they exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:46:04 No.14122380 Report

Quoted By: >>14122395

>>14122372
space is not continuous.
Einstein thought the same thing.
>>14122373
your rambling

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:46:20 No.14122381 Report

Quoted By: >>14122387

>>14122366
Yes exactly plugging into all three of those divisions in the surge protector will produce the same 1/3 unit of nothing as if you plug the cord into any of the three spots divisions of power in the picture.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1634013729466.jpg, 20KiB, 369x334

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:47:06 No.14122386 Report

Quoted By: >>14122389

>>14122376
>Minimum value / 10

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:47:16 No.14122387 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122379
>Prove they exist.
they do that by proving the graviton exists, dumbass.
>>14122381
hippie science

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:48:17 No.14122389 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122386
>I'm a tard whom doesn't understand a discrete universe means it isn't continuous.
fark you're stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:48:29 No.14122390 Report

Quoted By: >>14122393

>>14122376
>and the next discrete value is "the minimum" value..
No, not the next, zero is it, it is the minimum value in the absolute number system, you can call it 0.0 or 0.00 if you want, but it is the same thing as zero because zero is the minimum absolute value and if you try to divide it further, you will just have more zeros no matter how many discrete units or dimension of nothing you divide it into which is why nothing exists in every possible dimension, at a minimum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:50:09 No.14122392 Report

Quoted By: >>14122463

take a set where the following applies:
0 is an element of the set
if x is an element of the set, x+1 is an element of the set
how many elements does this set have?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:50:23 No.14122393 Report

Quoted By: >>14122397

>>14122390
>No, not the next, zero is it, it is the minimum value in the absolute number system, you can call it 0.0 or 0.00 if you want, but it is the same thing as zero because zero is the minimum absolute value and if you try to divide it further,
yes, zero is the lowest, it means zero.
the next up is "the minimum" possible increase..
there is now existing amount between these two.

great, now fuck off back to /lit/, you larping faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:50:42 No.14122395 Report

Quoted By: >>14122396

>>14122380
No, I am reinforcing the same truth that will be true forever no matter how many times you try to divide nothing, you will still have a whole bunch of nothing, it is the lowest possible value that can be divided into equal parts of itself infinitely.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO not INFINITE.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:52:47 No.14122396 Report

Quoted By: >>14122399 >>14123721

>>14122395
>it is the lowest possible value that can be divided into equal parts of itself infinitely.
Its a limit.
You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:53:13 No.14122397 Report

Quoted By: >>14122402

>>14122393
>the next up is "the minimum" possible increase..
No, it is not next up, zero is the minimum possible increase 0+0 is defined, it is not some undefined logic.

>there is now existing amount between these two.
Nope if you increase nothing by nothing there is no other amount between them other than nothing.

If you want to argue about lit, fine go do it, but your semantics are not changing how math works or adding some other minimum possible value to the number system other than the value zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:54:14 No.14122399 Report

Quoted By: >>14122403

>>14122396
Nothing will never become nothing?
Wrong, nothing is always nothing, you can divide it into more nothing without limit and you will always just have nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:54:58 No.14122402 Report

Quoted By: >>14122406

>>14122397
>NOOOOO!!! zero is not the smallest, I can divide zero by zero and have zero!!!!!

yes, you retarded nigger...
if you add zero to zero, you get zero...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:56:33 No.14122403 Report

Quoted By: >>14122406

>>14122399
>it is the lowest possible value that can be divided into equal parts of itself infinitely.
not what you said.
dividing it by itself infinite times, is what you said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:58:42 No.14122406 Report

Quoted By: >>14122408

>>14122402
>>14122403
No see
>>14122334
>you can divide nothing by anything (other than nothing itself)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 07:59:57 No.14122408 Report

Quoted By: >>14122411

>>14122406
you have nothing...
you're literally a special needs student.
you will always have nothing...

nothing comes from nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:02:19 No.14122411 Report

Quoted By: >>14122415 >>14122417

>>14122408
>nothing comes from nothing.
Exactly you are proving my point, we know something can come from nothing because nothing is something (the lowest possible value on the number line) and it comes from nothing.

And you are also specifically proving that planck/2 != 0 because only 0/2=0 and planck length != 0.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1 Planck length.jpg, 1MiB, 952x6131

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:05:02 No.14122415 Report

Quoted By: >>14122421 >>14124500 >>14124513

>>14122411
>And you are also specifically proving that planck/2 != 0 because only 0/2=0 and planck length != 0.
I'm stating planck is the smallest "measurable" unit greater than zero....

the "actual" smallest "unit" above zero is not yet defined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:07:03 No.14122417 Report

Quoted By: >>14122424

>>14122411
>the lowest possible amount of something you can have is zero...
wowwwwwwwww!!!!! really..
so you're an AI-bot whom can't read english like humans? or just a deliberately contentious anal teenage faggot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:09:51 No.14122421 Report

Quoted By: >>14122429 >>14122430

>>14122415
>I'm stating planck is the smallest "measurable" unit greater than zero....
Irrelevant and unproven, you went about trying to prove that by asserting that dividing planck length is zero rather than unknown and you had to switch your argument because you realized you were wrong about:

>>14122146
Planck/2 = 0 (measurement error this statement is not true)

>>14122194
>You can not divide energy by two
You can not measure energy divided below that threshold, but you can use math to keep dividing all you want.

>>14122221
>both halves vanish; they no longer exist
They don't vanish, you just can't measure them with your tools, but you can use math to approximate what the value should be.

>the "actual" smallest "unit" above zero is not yet defined.
Exactly, its not a planck length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:11:30 No.14122424 Report

Quoted By: >>14122433

>>14122417
If its so obvious, tell this dipshit, who thinks the lowest possible value is the same thing as the lowest value we can measure >>14122146 who either keeps arguing or other dipshit keep picking up his arguments and making terrible points in bad faith.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:12:59 No.14122429 Report

Quoted By: >>14122434

>>14122421
>Irrelevant and unproven, you went about trying to prove that by asserting that dividing planck length is zero rather than unknown and you had to switch your argument because you realized you were wrong about:
Planck is a "placeholder", dividing planck in half will get you an unmeasurable 0.5planck.

learn that planck isn't the smallest unit above zero...
its much smaller than planck, we don't have any agreement on what that is..

you're obviously an AI-bot too dimwitted the understand the difference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:14:00 No.14122430 Report

Quoted By: >>14122434

>>14122421
>>the "actual" smallest "unit" above zero is not yet defined.
>Exactly, its not a planck length.
you really should of picked up on that sooner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:15:54 No.14122433 Report

Quoted By: >>14122440

>>14122424
fark you're stupid..
he's clearly stated "planck" is the smallest unit we can measure above zero, but the "actual" smallest unit above zero is much much smaller..

you're obviously slow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:16:33 No.14122434 Report

Quoted By: >>14122438

>>14122429
>unmeasurable
The value is not unmeasurable, though, you can just use math to measure what the value of planck/2 is, planck length itself is a mathematical abstraction that has only been defined and measured with math and not in some real world planckometer.

>>14122430
I picked up on that a very long time ago and have spent a considerable amount of time ITT trying to get you people to acknowledge it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1 Planck length.jpg, 1MiB, 952x6131

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:19:03 No.14122438 Report

Quoted By: >>14122442

>>14122434
>you can just use math to measure what the value of planck/2 is,
measure, means take a measurement using a measuring tool.

>>14122434
>I picked up on that a very long time ago and have spent a considerable amount of time ITT trying to get you people to acknowledge it.
why are you then arguing against the only anon whom has uploaded a pic to explain exactly that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:20:06 No.14122440 Report

Quoted By: >>14122443

>>14122433
>he's clearly stated "planck" is the smallest unit we can measure above zero
He is wrong, we can use a calculator to measure planck/2 and there is no planckometer to actually measure a planck length in reality, so either way it is pure speculation and abstraction.

>but the "actual" smallest unit above zero is much much smaller.
No, the actual smallest unit above zero we can measure is zero because 0+0 = 0 and 0 is a zero amount above zero because it is the smallest possible incrementation. Just try it in code and see how much faster adding planck lengths will grow compared to adding zero and see if you can find an absolute value smaller than zero that will grow slower, but you can't because it doesn't exist because the smallest possible value is zero and the smallest possible step size of value is also zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:22:26 No.14122442 Report

Quoted By: >>14122448 >>14122454 >>14122460

>>14122438
Math is a measuring tool, it is the best tool we have for measuring raw value and ratio.
Why are you arguing with me if you say you agree?
I don't even understand what you are trying to argue that there is some value greater than zero that is still the smallest possible value?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gltch.gif, 256KiB, 500x275

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:23:43 No.14122443 Report

Quoted By: >>14122461

>>14122440
>He is wrong, we can use a calculator to measure planck/2 and there is no planckometer to actually measure a planck length in reality, so either way it is pure speculation and abstraction.
thats not measuring.
>>14122440
>No, the actual smallest unit above zero we can measure is zero because 0+0 = 0 and 0 is a zero amount above zero because it is the smallest possible incrementation. Just try it in code and see how much faster adding planck lengths will grow compared to adding zero and see if you can find an absolute value smaller than zero that will grow slower, but you can't because it doesn't exist because the smallest possible value is zero and the smallest possible step size of value is also zero.
You are an AI-bot, aren't you?

increasing from zero to zero is an increment of zero..

humans consider that to be no increment at all..
there was no displacement.
you're a schiz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:25:42 No.14122448 Report

Quoted By: >>14122465

>>14122442
take a measurement..
means measure it with a device that uses a transducer to give you a value..

what you're describing is not an "actual" measurement in the real world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:28:17 No.14122454 Report

Quoted By: >>14122473

>>14122442
People construct models all the time.
We take measurements to see how their predictions compared to their model.

We do not conclude the model right without comparing it to real-world measurements.
what you're describing is idiocy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:29:49 No.14122460 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122442
People construct models all the time.
We take measurements to see how their predictions compared to the real world we measured.

We do not conclude the model right without first comparing it to real-world measurements.
what you're describing is idiocy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:30:23 No.14122461 Report

Quoted By: >>14122469

>>14122443
>thats not measuring.
Then what does a calculator do if not measure values based on the input arithmetic? Define:calculate -> determine -> measure
>increasing from zero to zero is an increment of zero..
Exactly because it is the smallest possible value, adding it to anything is negligible because it is so small, it doesn't even matter or change the measurement because it is so small.

>humans consider that to be no increment at all..
So what, math doesn't 0+0=0, there is a clear mathematical operation that happens when you increment by zero and any programming language you use will allow you to increment anything by zero to produce to smallest value change possible.

>there was no displacement.
There was displacement by a value of zero split equally in the positive and negative directions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:31:16 No.14122463 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122392
What makes you think it's meaningful to consider such set?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:31:57 No.14122465 Report

Quoted By: >>14122472

>>14122448
>means measure it with a device that uses a transducer to give you a value..
Wrong I used a real device in the real world called a calculator that was really made to measure the actual values of arithmetic formulas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:32:33 No.14122469 Report

Quoted By: >>14122476

>>14122461
>Then what does a calculator do if not measure values based on the input arithmetic? Define:calculate -> determine -> measure
calculator performs calculations..
calculators do not measure.
>rest of your post
meds

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:33:35 No.14122472 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122465
calculator performs calculations..
calculators do not measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:33:36 No.14122473 Report

Quoted By: >>14122475 >>14122488

>>14122454
I didn't do that either, I pointed you the way to the value calculated by the arithmetic measuring devices called a calculator and also said you could use any computer to also compute the vale of the measurement made by the calculator when you enter the formula I provided.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:34:44 No.14122475 Report

Quoted By: >>14122483

>>14122473
calculators compute, not measure.
are you trolling? or genuinely stupid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:34:47 No.14122476 Report

Quoted By: >>14122485

>>14122469
What are calculations?
They are determinations resulting from the logical value measurement of arithmetic formulas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:36:11 No.14122483 Report

Quoted By: >>14122492 >>14122568 >>14125123

>>14122475
compute=enumeration=quantification=measurement, its the same thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:36:19 No.14122485 Report

Quoted By: >>14122490

>>14122476
>They are determinations resulting from the logical value measurement of arithmetic formulas.
and measuring tools measure the thing as it actually is in the real world, not some convoluted guesswork horseshit you made a model of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:37:08 No.14122488 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122473
Wait until this guy finds out how they "measured" the planck length.
>It was a calculator

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:37:34 No.14122490 Report

Quoted By: >>14122497

>>14122485
Yes, calculators measure mathematical values which exist in the real world which we know because why we can make calculators and computers to consistently measure values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:37:58 No.14122492 Report

Quoted By: >>14122495

>>14122483
>its the same thing
nope.
measure uses a transducer to measure a thing in the real world...
maths is also needed to adjust for the transducers response curve, etc...
but the transducer is what the measurement is based on....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:38:49 No.14122495 Report

Quoted By: >>14122504

>>14122492
>measure uses a transducer to measure a thing in the real world...
You mean like how calculators use them to measure values based on real world observation documented as mathematical axioms?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:39:16 No.14122497 Report

Quoted By: >>14122503

>>14122490
>calculators measure mathematical values which exist in the real world
calculators don't fucking measure anything in the real world, retard.
you input the fucking numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:41:58 No.14122503 Report

Quoted By: >>14122510 >>14122514 >>14122520

>>14122497
>calculators don't fucking measure anything in the real world, retard.
So values don't exist, you can't actually make metrics and have multiples or divisions all of math and science is fake and calculators don't actually work its just some big trick that produces the illusion of consistency by shear coincidence?

>you input the numbers
No you input values represented by the most common symbols of vale called numbers, specifically decimal numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:41:59 No.14122504 Report

Quoted By: >>14122518

>>14122495
what values did you start of with?
what it a thing in the real world?
then you must measure its value, retard.

>but muh calculator can run around in circles all day long making predictions it can't prove.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:43:50 No.14122510 Report

Quoted By: >>14122530

>>14122503
make all the models you like...
its fucking meaningless what your tardy theory says should be the result...
if you don't measure it and prove it is what your model says it is, then you're all schizo psychosis word salad neurosis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:44:52 No.14122514 Report

Quoted By: >>14122524 >>14123523

>>14122503
You actually are an AI-bot, aren't you?
*serious question

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:47:43 No.14122518 Report

Quoted By: >>14122526 >>14122536

>>14122504
>what values did you start of with?
Absolute Values start with nothing generally represented in math, for calculators to measure, with the symbol 0.

>what it a thing in the real world?
Value is a real thing in the real world, we can measure it through observation or calculation and symbolize it with numbers and mathematical axioms of value.

>then you must measure its value, retard.
Yes which is why we generally have to make sure something that has any value is first measured and tested with mathematics before we can begin the process of calculating and computing its real world value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:48:19 No.14122520 Report

Quoted By: >>14122533

>>14122503
calculators don't make measurements.
calculators perform math operations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:49:13 No.14122524 Report

Quoted By: >>14122531

>>14122514
Thanks for the compliment that my logic is so rock solid and yours is so shitty that the only possible resolution to our argument is some cope that I am a logical robot and you are just some flawed human with poor observation skills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:49:50 No.14122526 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122518
do you not understand that you are a schizophrenic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:50:31 No.14122530 Report

Quoted By: >>14122540

>>14122510
What have you measured?
What is your theory again?
There is some theoretical smallest possible value that is greater than zero.
That doesn't even make sense if it were greater than zero, it wouldn't be the smallest possible, by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:50:52 No.14122531 Report

Quoted By: >>14122537

>>14122524
no, you appear to be too stupid to be a real person.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:52:31 No.14122533 Report

Quoted By: >>14122545

>>14122520
If calculators didn't measure objective value, they wouldn't produce consistent results of value assessments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:53:31 No.14122536 Report

Quoted By: >>14122543

>>14122518
a single test is better than a thousand expert opinions..
we measure a thing...
that measurement is the answer, not your model..

we only need to account for the inaccuracy of the measuring tool..
if your model doesn't agree with the measuring tool within the measuring tools accuracy.. then your wrong..

the measurement is the standard.
not your fucking theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:53:34 No.14122537 Report

Quoted By: >>14122551

>>14122531
Then why you are the one getting emotional and resorting to name calling because your stupid argument is very obviously failing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:55:18 No.14122540 Report

Quoted By: >>14122546

>>14122530
>That doesn't even make sense if it were greater than zero, it wouldn't be the smallest possible, by definition.
when humans say 'x" is the smallest value..
we "usually" mean its the smallest value above "zero"...

does this now clarify how humans communicate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:56:26 No.14122543 Report

Quoted By: >>14122555

>>14122536
>that measurement is the answer, not your model..
A calculator is not a model, it is a hard tool built with physics that consistently measures the value output of arithmetic formulas that can be built into every computer.

>if your model doesn't agree with the measuring tool within the measuring tools accuracy
You are the one whose model isn't right >>14122146 and who is seething and coping because the objective measurement tools everyone has at their disposal to measure the objective value of your claims proves you wrong, so now you have to try to somehow prove that calculators are fake news instead of accepting facts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:57:50 No.14122545 Report

Quoted By: >>14122553

>>14122533
calculators don't measure at all.
the Arithmetic Logic unit does all the Boolean, thats not a measuring tool.

measuring tool is ruler, multimeter, micrometer, Vernier, etc because they measure real-world things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:57:51 No.14122546 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122540
>we "usually" mean its the smallest value above "zero"...
Zero is above zero, by a zero amount, ie 0+0=0, thus it is the smallest possible amount above zero that is possible with math and logic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:59:06 No.14122551 Report

Quoted By: >>14122557

>>14122537
this idiot thinks he can measure the distance between two new stars, previously uncharted..
using his calculator and without any measuring tools...

ok.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 08:59:51 No.14122553 Report

Quoted By: >>14122561

>>14122545
>Arithmetic Logic unit
That is just another word for a calculator without considering the parts of a calculator needed for direct human interaction to allow for measurement with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:00:46 No.14122555 Report

Quoted By: >>14122560

>>14122543
>A calculator is not a model, it is a hard tool built with physics that consistently measures the value output of arithmetic formulas that can be built into every computer.
lmao, thats not a measurement.
>the rest
reword it, its all senseless idiocy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:00:51 No.14122557 Report

Quoted By: >>14122563

>>14122551
This idiot thinks he can measure the final value of complex mathematical arithmetic without calculation.
ok

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:01:51 No.14122560 Report

Quoted By: >>14122565

>>14122555
It is by definition a determination of quantified value which is the same as a measurement by definition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:02:11 No.14122561 Report

Quoted By: >>14122566

>>14122553
calculators don't measure, they calculate numbers already given to it....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:03:14 No.14122563 Report

Quoted By: >>14122568

>>14122557
thats not a measurement..
go read a dictionary, retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:04:28 No.14122565 Report

Quoted By: >>14122573

>>14122560
nope...
calculation in a calculator is not the same thing as taking a physical measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:04:38 No.14122566 Report

Quoted By: >>14122571

>>14122561
A number is a number, you don't need to calculate a number, it is a certain value by definition through observation.
You need to a calculator or calculation when you have a bunch of numbers interacting and need a way to measure the final value of the arithmetic interaction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:05:58 No.14122568 Report

Quoted By: >>14122576

>>14122563
I did, I also had a thesaurus handy and I gave you the direct synonym chain from dictionary definitions that makes calculation the same as measurement by definition.
>>14122483

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:07:00 No.14122571 Report

Quoted By: >>14122583

>>14122566
>and need a way to measure the final value of the arithmetic interaction.
you take a measurement...
the rest is handled by the devices on board electronics..
If the transducer gave a reading that didn't need manipulating then it wouldn't have it.

look at old voltage meter with a needle, no calculator on that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:07:42 No.14122573 Report

Quoted By: >>14122580

>>14122565
Yes the calculator is the physical embodiment of raw value that lets you measure various values with electronic sublayers that react to certain symbols equated as various values as defined by the traditions of math.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:08:48 No.14122576 Report

Quoted By: >>14122590

>>14122568
lmao, your calculator can't measure anything in the real world....

you're a tard.....
take your calculator and measure the length of your driveway...
guess what?, it can't..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:09:49 No.14122580 Report

Quoted By: >>14122590 >>14122592

>>14122573
lmao, your calculator can't measure anything in the real world....

you're a tard.....
take your calculator and measure the length of your driveway...
guess what?, it can't....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:11:43 No.14122583 Report

Quoted By: >>14122595

>>14122571
>you take a measurement...
Yes, in the form of a arithmetic statement directly representing various valuation.
>the rest is handled by the devices on board electronics..
Yes, such as the ALU you mentioned.
>If the transducer gave a reading that didn't need manipulating then it wouldn't have it.
Calculators do give readings for 0+0, they don't just turn off spaz out or say undefined, so they can measure adding the smallest possible value to the smallest possible value and having the smallest possible value.

>look at old voltage meter with a needle, no calculator on that.
Wrong, look at any multimeter and you will find a calculator and an ALU, so not only is a calulator making value measurements on behalf that measurement device, the measurement device can not possible exists without something like a calculator able to feed it value measurements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:13:52 No.14122590 Report

Quoted By: >>14122602

>>14122576
>>14122580
I have provided plenty of explanation and you refuse to engage, you just go back to the raw assertion that I continue to disprove.

Calculators do make measurements, they measure value.

>take your calculator and measure the length of your driveway.
Length is not value, it is the metric for distance, calculators don't measure distance, they measure value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:14:53 No.14122592 Report

Quoted By: >>14122644

>>14122580
>hurr durr time doesn't exist because you can't measure the length of a driveway with a clock

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO before electronics.jpg, 116KiB, 499x640

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:16:38 No.14122595 Report

Quoted By: >>14122600

>>14122583
>Yes, in the form of a arithmetic statement directly representing various valuation.
no, using a transducer.
>>>14122583
>Wrong, look at any multimeter and you will find a calculator and an ALU,
you really are an AI-bot without a fucking clue, aren't you!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:18:56 No.14122600 Report

Quoted By: >>14122606

>>14122595
I don't understand what you are claiming, but multimeters are electronics and have a microprocessor with a CPU and ALU and you can make calculators with transducers if you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:19:02 No.14122602 Report

Quoted By: >>14122604

>>14122590
>Length is not value, it is the metric for distance, calculators don't measure distance, they measure value.
spasticity just oozes all over, ey!!
>NOOOOO!! it can't measure anything other than make calculations like a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:20:17 No.14122604 Report

Quoted By: >>14122609

>>14122602
>it can't measure anything other than make calculations
It can measure value, that is what a calculation is a value measurement.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO no CPU nor ALU, here.jpg, 302KiB, 1300x1129

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:21:01 No.14122606 Report

Quoted By: >>14122610

>>14122600
multimeters don't need a CPU nor ALU to be multimeters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:22:10 No.14122609 Report

Quoted By: >>14122614

>>14122604
a tool makes a measurement, then calculators are used to process raw data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:22:16 No.14122610 Report

Quoted By: >>14122618

>>14122606
Good luck making a multimeter than can measure at the planck scale without a CPU or ALU.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:23:44 No.14122614 Report

Quoted By: >>14122621

>>14122609
>calculators are used to process raw data.
If by process you mean turn long symbolic statements into shorter ones by measuring the value and producing a more simplified symbol to represent the same value, then yes that is exactly what calculators do because they are value measurement devices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:23:58 No.14122618 Report

Quoted By: >>14122620

>>14122610
Good luck measuring the plank scale without a transducer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:24:45 No.14122620 Report

Quoted By: >>14122638

>>14122618
Good luck measuring the final values without a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:25:17 No.14122621 Report

Quoted By: >>14122631

>>14122614
yeh, we mean measuring things in the real world.
no one cares for your sand-castle horseshit.
you can't measure anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:26:59 No.14122631 Report

Quoted By: >>14122634

>>14122621
>you can't measure anything.
I already measured the value of planck/2 with google's calculator and spoiler, it wasn't zero which is why you are now trying to debunk calculation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:28:00 No.14122634 Report

Quoted By: >>14122640

>>14122631
fucking idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:29:02 No.14122638 Report

Quoted By: >>14122643

>>14122620
without the transducer, your calculator can spend all day doing pointless shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:29:37 No.14122640 Report

Quoted By: >>14122645 >>14122667 >>14122712

>>14122634
Sure, getting more emotional and having outbursts of calling people names will totally logically prove the measurements produced by google's calculator is wrong and you were right all along.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:30:41 No.14122643 Report

Quoted By: >>14122650

>>14122638
Again you can use transducers to make a calculator, but it is entirely unnecessary because we have better tools like microprocessors with an ALU.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:31:00 No.14122644 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122592
Divide your driveway into (Planck length / 2) intervals and take the sum. You have just measured distance with a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:31:06 No.14122645 Report

Quoted By: >>14122652

>>14122640
great now go prove that thing that is planck/2 actually exists, and is indeed that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:32:09 No.14122650 Report

Quoted By: >>14122655

>>14122643
>Again you can use transducers to make a calculator
then its no longer called a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:32:13 No.14122652 Report

Quoted By: >>14122661

>>14122645
The value appears on a calculator that anyone can use, how does it not exist as a very small value?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:33:20 No.14122655 Report

Quoted By: >>14122660 >>14122668

>>14122650
Yes it is, if you made it out of vacuum tubes instead, it would still be a computer because it would still measure the same values, but with different methods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:34:27 No.14122660 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122655
Even if it was made out of rock and wood, an abacus is still a calculator and it still provides a way to measure value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:34:30 No.14122661 Report

Quoted By: >>14122667

>>14122652
>NOOOO!!! Planck scale isn't the smallest thing that can exist above zero and I can measure....
>I can write down numbers much lower!!!
you have the logic of an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:35:44 No.14122667 Report

Quoted By: >>14122672

>>14122661
see
>>14122640
You have the logic of a young girl who just wants what she wants, truth be damned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:36:11 No.14122668 Report

Quoted By: >>14122684

>>14122655
a calculator is a specific purpose item..
if you give it a transducer to measure voltage, then its no longer a specific purpose calculator...
its then called a voltage-meter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:37:12 No.14122672 Report

Quoted By: >>14122690

>>14122667
you're obviously an idiot rambling halfwit shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:37:19 No.14122673 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122348
A computer that is connected to the internet? Well, why didn't you say so earlier, you smart fellow? I read "an internet computer" and jumped to a hasty conclusion that that anon was someone born in the stone-ages and experienced having a computer at the ripe age of 69420.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:38:46 No.14122684 Report

Quoted By: >>14122692

>>14122668
>if you give it a transducer to measure voltage,
If you arrange a bunch of transducers in a way that voltage value is used as to represent raw value and use the different voltage potentials to measure changes in value based on input arithmetic, you have built a value measuring calculator out of transducers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:39:47 No.14122690 Report

Quoted By: >>14122697

>>14122672
You are obviously wrong and have to resort to name calling and generally fallacy because you logic is not sound and you are emotionally unstable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:40:25 No.14122692 Report

Quoted By: >>14122707

>>14122684
transducers don't need electronics, dumbass.
I can measure shit without electronics..
we've been doing it for a century.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:41:33 No.14122697 Report

Quoted By: >>14122712

>>14122690
you're clearly a spastic rambling horseshit..
you're obviously a teenager and think nothing existed before computers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:43:43 No.14122707 Report

Quoted By: >>14122714

>>14122692
>transducers don't need electronics
I didn't say the word electronics, a transducer is generally an electronic component and the method I described only used transducers as the electronic component of the calculator, but you could do the same thing with light intensity, pressure or something else besides voltage values from a voltage transducer if you wanted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:44:44 No.14122712 Report

Quoted By: >>14122721

>>14122697
see
>>14122640
Get it all out, girl. You forgot to say something bad about my tiny penis though, other than that, good teenage girl impression.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:45:43 No.14122714 Report

Quoted By: >>14122730

>>14122707
>and the method I described only used transducers as the electronic component of the calculator,
then its no longer a calculator..
its a voltage-meter, or pressure-meter or something else; but not a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:47:09 No.14122721 Report

Quoted By: >>14122736

>>14122712
blah blah blah, from an idiot who thinks he can measure an UNKNOWN to him quantity less than planck.

Here's an unknown, now measure it without a transducer....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:48:38 No.14122730 Report

Quoted By: >>14122734

>>14122714
No because the input/out is not raw voltage, the input is a symbolic representation of value (in voltage, pressure, or whatever) and the output is the actual of the measured arithmetic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:49:20 No.14122734 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122730
>and the output is the actual of the measured arithmetic.
blah blah blah, from an idiot who thinks he can measure an UNKNOWN to him quantity less than planck.

Here's an unknown, now measure it without a transducer....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:49:39 No.14122736 Report

Quoted By: >>14122741

>>14122721

planck/2 is not unknown and it is not zero, it has a value, a value that can be measured by a calculator to be further divided by 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:50:25 No.14122741 Report

Quoted By: >>14122746

>>14122736
>planck/2 is not unknown and it is not zero, it has a value, a value that can be measured by a calculator to be further divided by 2.
Here's an unknown, now measure it without a transducer....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:51:55 No.14122746 Report

Quoted By: >>14122749 >>14122756 >>14122763

>>14122741
Calculators, even when made out of transducers, don't measure unknowns, they measure actual real values that exist in the real world, just because you didn't know the answer before you input it into the calculator doesn't mean the value was unknown before you measured it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:53:04 No.14122749 Report

Quoted By: >>14122771 >>14123098

>>14122746
an unknown in math is called undefined, if you try to get a calculator to measure something divided by zero, for instance, it will say undefined rather than unknown.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:54:51 No.14122756 Report

Quoted By: >>14122768

>>14122746
>doesn't mean the value was unknown before you measured it.
yeh, it does...
I have an amount of energy between 1.1 planck and 1.9 planck...
I'm not telling you what it is because I don't know, but now its been halved....
tell me what the energy value is without a transducer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:56:58 No.14122763 Report

Quoted By: >>14122776

>>14122746
>Calculators, even when made out of transducers
calculators aren't made out of transducers..
if they use a transducer to measure shit in the real-world, then they're not called calculators.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:58:13 No.14122768 Report

Quoted By: >>14122778 >>14122789

>>14122756
>I have an amount of energy between 1.1 planck and 1.9 planck...
Calculators don't measure something between something and something because that is not a value, it is a variable, calculators measure values, not unknowns.

I will call your original value x because it is a variable value that can be anything from 1.1 to 1.9 and give you a set of possible answers that will be x/2 depending on where you measure your variable to actually be.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO THIS.gif, 237KiB, 500x281

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:58:50 No.14122771 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122749
THIS
someone with sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 09:59:50 No.14122776 Report

Quoted By: >>14122784

>>14122763
>calculators aren't made out of transducers..
They could be, they aren't because we have much better tools.

>if they use a transducer to measure shit in the real-world
It is if the thing they are measuring is a value statement in the form of arithmetic logic input by a user as is consistent with the definition of a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:00:12 No.14122778 Report

Quoted By: >>14122786

>>14122768
>I will call your original value x because it is a variable value that can be anything from 1.1 to 1.9 and give you a set of possible answers that will be x/2 depending on where you measure your variable to actually be.
shit answer, I need accuracy.
>Calculators don't measure something between something and something because that is not a value, it is a variable, calculators measure values, not unknowns.
they don't measure shit, halfwit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:01:15 No.14122784 Report

Quoted By: >>14122792

>>14122776
If it measures shit in the real-world, then that not a calculator, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:01:41 No.14122786 Report

Quoted By: >>14122795

>>14122778
>shit answer, I need accuracy.
It is just as accurate as your input, until you refine x itself, it is the best value measurement you can get with a calculator.

>they don't measure shit, halfwit.
They measure value and no cursing or namecalling combination your come up with make calculators stop measuring value.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4chan expert.jpg, 43KiB, 570x587

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:02:17 No.14122789 Report

Quoted By: >>14122802

>>14122768
>I need the answer, first....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:02:42 No.14122792 Report

Quoted By: >>14122806 >>14122814

>>14122784
Yes the real world thing it measures is the value of arithmetic formulas because it is a calculator and that is what calculators measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:03:19 No.14122795 Report

Quoted By: >>14122810 >>14122816

>>14122786
>They measure value and no cursing or namecalling combination your come up with make calculators stop measuring value.
lmao, you're a simpleton.
>It is just as accurate as your input, until you refine x itself, it is the best value measurement you can get with a calculator.
you need a transducer, idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:04:31 No.14122802 Report

Quoted By: >>14122809

>>14122789
No I gave you the answer, I need a more specific value to give you a more specific measurement because the value you provided, x, is not actually one value, but a set of values who variable value will change the answer you are asking for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:05:11 No.14122806 Report

Quoted By: >>14122819

>>14122792
no, a transducer does that..
the calculator does does calculations.

the transducer gets the value, not the calculator.
lots of transducers work everywhere, without a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:06:13 No.14122809 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122802
Heres a thing, now measure it....
its sitting on the desk in front of you.

you make a shit engineer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:06:38 No.14122810 Report

Quoted By: >>14122820

>>14122795
Your logic problem can not be fixed with more namecalling.
I already put transducers in the calculator, I have plenty now and don't need any more for the transducer based calculator, it is good to go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:07:20 No.14122814 Report

Quoted By: >>14122824

>>14122792
not all transducers give outputs requiring adjustments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:07:38 No.14122816 Report

Quoted By: >>14122825

>>14122795
Do you think an electronic calculator only calculates electronics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:08:39 No.14122819 Report

Quoted By: >>14122836

>>14122806
>no, a transducer does that..
>the calculator does does calculations.
And a calculator made out of transducers does calculations using transducers, it is both a calculator and transducers because that is how making something out of something else works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:08:48 No.14122820 Report

Quoted By: >>14122829

>>14122810
>I already put transducers in the calculator,
lmao, calculators don't have transducers..

what made the measurement?
transducer, right?
not all transducer need calculators for adjustments.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:09:39 No.14122824 Report

Quoted By: >>14122850

>>14122814
I won't use those then, I will only use the ones that will help a calculator calculate, no need to use any other kind in my transducer based calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:09:50 No.14122825 Report

Quoted By: >>14122834

>>14122816
>only calculates electronics?
if you mean its composed of electronic circuits, yes..

if you mean it has a transducer, then no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:10:42 No.14122829 Report

Quoted By: >>14122836

>>14122820
>lmao, calculators don't have transducers..
My transducer based calculators do, why do you think I keep calling them transducer based calculators?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:11:51 No.14122834 Report

Quoted By: >>14122840

>>14122825
No you are saying a calculator composed of transducers can only calculate a transduction, so wouldn't that mean a calculator composed of electronics can only calculate an electronic.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1612432645252.png, 87KiB, 277x229

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:12:13 No.14122836 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122829
>>14122819
>And a calculator made out of transducers does calculations using transducers
>My transducer based calculators do, why do you think I keep calling them transducer based calculators?
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:13:37 No.14122840 Report

Quoted By: >>14122846

>>14122834
>No you are saying a calculator composed of transducers
calculators aren't composed of transducers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:16:02 No.14122846 Report

Quoted By: >>14122856

>>14122840
There is no reason you couldn't make them that way, but transducers are expensive and microprocessors are more efficient, so it isn't worth the effort of producing any at scale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:16:17 No.14122847 Report

Quoted By: >>14122848 >>14122862

>>14122241
so it blinks off and never back on again => state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:17:19 No.14122848 Report

Quoted By: >>14122869

>>14122847
>infinity
Nope, it stays off until it doesn't exist which is the finite amount of time between when you turn it off and when the light bulb is obliterated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:17:24 No.14122850 Report

Quoted By: >>14122873

>>14122824
>transducer based calculator.
having a bit of trouble finding this fantasy retardation you keep having.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:19:32 No.14122855 Report

Quoted By: >>14122859

>>14122278
if you smash the bulb and it can't make light then no more light => state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:19:38 No.14122856 Report

Quoted By: >>14122873

>>14122846
transducers measure sheit in the real-world.
thats all they do.

without a transducer, your calculator can't measure any UNKNOWN in the real world.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1627194849542.jpg, 8KiB, 211x239

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:20:40 No.14122859 Report

Quoted By: >>14122876

>>14122855

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:20:53 No.14122862 Report

Quoted By: >>14122872 >>14122877

>>14122291
>>14122273
>bulb life
see >>14122847

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:22:53 No.14122869 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122848
if a light doesn't exist then there is no light => state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO not INFINITE.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:23:32 No.14122872 Report

Quoted By: >>14122878 >>14123721

>>14122862
>proves infinity.
eternal = potential
infinity = actual

Its a limit.
You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:23:35 No.14122873 Report

Quoted By: >>14122880

>>14122850
Of course you are having trouble, you have no idea how transducers or calculators actually work, why would you understand how to use transducers instead of microprocessors to do the inputs and outputs of a calculator?

>>14122856
The mechanical keyboard of any calculator is basically a pressure transducer (or can be replaced with pressure transducers instead of simple buttons) that translates the pressure of a button push into a symbol that can be used for arithmetic based on the button pressed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:23:54 No.14122876 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122859

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:24:36 No.14122877 Report

Quoted By: >>14122888

>>14122862
No it is not off forever, it is off until it is destroyed after which point it is neither on or off, it doesn't exist anymore.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:24:55 No.14122878 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122872

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:25:19 No.14122880 Report

Quoted By: >>14122883

>>14122873
>no idea how....
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!
>"muh buttons"
great, heres an UNKNOWN, so measure it, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:26:59 No.14122883 Report

Quoted By: >>14122889

>>14122880
Calculators don't measure unknowns, they measure values, you would have to give me a value, like planck/2 and I can tell you that it is not unknown, or undefined, it is a nonzero value that is absolutely greater than zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:28:42 No.14122888 Report

Quoted By: >>14122893

>>14122877
if light doesn't exist then it is clearly off

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1610080247769.jpg, 41KiB, 396x382

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:28:50 No.14122889 Report

Quoted By: >>14122901

>>14122883
>muh calculator only does math.....
yeh, no shit!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:29:40 No.14122893 Report

Quoted By: >>14122900

>>14122888
No, it the bulb doesn't even exist, the bulb's light is not off, it is nonexistent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:31:14 No.14122900 Report

Quoted By: >>14122902

>>14122893
if light is not being emitted then light is off. whether a bulb exists or not is irrelevant

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:31:42 No.14122901 Report

Quoted By: >>14122909

>>14122889
>I now accept that math is the measurement of value based on real world observations and that all calculators do is measure value.
Ok thanks for finally coming to your senses, I don't understand why it took you this long to understand reason, but at least you finally made it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:32:45 No.14122902 Report

Quoted By: >>14122915 >>14122916

>>14122900
>if light is not being emitted
There is nothing to emit anything, the light is not off, it doesn't exist anymore because it is not infinite, it is part of a bulb that will definitely come to an end at some finite point in the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:34:11 No.14122909 Report

Quoted By: >>14122919

>>14122901
math is just math, the transducer does the measurement..
not all transducers require calculators...

go measure an unknown with your calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:35:24 No.14122915 Report

Quoted By: >>14122917

>>14122902
if there is nothing to emit anything then clearly no light is being emitted. this is known in english as the light being off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:35:24 No.14122916 Report

Quoted By: >>14122920 >>14122923

>>14122902
your theory must work equally well with the bulb lit forever as it would with the bulb not lit.
You're just making up horseshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:36:26 No.14122917 Report

Quoted By: >>14122920

>>14122915
your theory must work equally well with the bulb lit forever as it would with the bulb not lit.
You're just making up horseshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:37:17 No.14122919 Report

Quoted By: >>14122971

>>14122909
>math is just math
Yes math is just math, the language of value.
>the transducer does the measurement..
thanks to math

>not all transducers require calculators
Exactly not all value requires calculation, it exists whether you can measure it or not, zero is the smallest possible value whether you can measure an satisfactorily infinitesimal greater value or not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:37:19 No.14122920 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122916
>>14122917

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 10:38:28 No.14122923 Report

Quoted By: >>14122975 >>14122981

>>14122916
Nope it won't stay lit forever, all bulbs are temporary because all bulbs follow a production process unless you can prove you have some immortal bulb that has always existed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:04:22 No.14122971 Report

Quoted By: >>14122986

>>14122919
>thanks to math.
>other pointless shit.
no, the transducer doesn't' have a calculator to use, nor need one. It just does its job.
some transducer are even yes or no, without any kind of adjustment..
some don't even need a bias circuit.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO THIS.png, 66KiB, 228x235

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:06:06 No.14122975 Report

Quoted By: >>14122981

>>14122923
>Nope it won't stay lit forever, all bulbs are temporary because all bulbs follow a production process unless you can prove you have some immortal bulb that has always existed.
THIS
*sorry previous post was friendly fire at wrong post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:08:20 No.14122981 Report

Quoted By: >>14122984 >>14122992

>>14122923
>>14122975
i like to think you two were fated to meet through your mutual interest in esl

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1609606118728.webm, 344KiB, 426x236

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:09:51 No.14122984 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122981
ok, mr potential not actual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:11:48 No.14122986 Report

Quoted By: >>14122991

>>14122971
>some transducer are even yes or no, without any kind of adjustment..
Yes, exactly like the pressure transducer as a numerical pad input as I described being part of my transducer based calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:13:29 No.14122991 Report

Quoted By: >>14123001 >>14123013

>>14122986
>Yes, exactly like the pressure transducer as a numerical pad input as I described being part of my transducer based calculator.
thats an input sensor for you, not the UNKNOWN value you were asked to measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:13:37 No.14122992 Report

Quoted By:

>>14122981
I think you are doomed to pointless periphery criticisms like grammar problems because your logic about the fundamental issues aren't very solid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:16:31 No.14123001 Report

Quoted By: >>14123029

>>14122991
I don't really care about the stupid strawman argument you had to invent to save face from losing the main argument, I never said calculators measure the unknown, I said they measure known values derived from arithmetic.

The only way you can claim they don't measure value is by saying they can't possible measure one kind of value, an unknown value, but nothing can measure unknown, even a transducer can't measure an an unknown input and if it measures the unknown as 0, it is measurement error, not to to the fact that small measurements outside of the threshold of the device actually reduce to zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:20:01 No.14123013 Report

Quoted By: >>14123029

>>14122991
I already used a calculator to measure planck/2, which you have claimed anything from it is the same as zero to the calculator can't do it to to it is an unknown quantity, all of which are wrong, it is a very specific greater than zero value in the 10^-34 magnitude range.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:25:45 No.14123029 Report

Quoted By: >>14123040

>>14123001
>said they measure known values derived from arithmetic.
they measure what they already know?
so, you're an idiot then!!
>but nothing can measure unknown
anytime a fix something thats not working I measure what is an UNKNOWN to me voltage..
I do it all the time.
>>>14123013
>I can only measure based on what I already know!!!
yeh, farkin impressive!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:32:30 No.14123040 Report

Quoted By: >>14123070 >>14123078 >>14123099 >>14123795 >>14123861

>>14123029
>they measure what they already know?
You are confusing a quantity of value that is unknown, such as i, with an unmeasured variable that has an unknown value.

You don't measure an unknown amount of voltage, you measure an amount of voltage whose value you don't yet know.

You can only measure what is known and measurable, you can't measure something with a value that is an unknown to your measurement device. The amount of time in a meter is unknown, but you don't yet know the amount of time it takes you to run a meter until you measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:42:36 No.14123070 Report

Quoted By: >>14123082

>>14123040
you're obviously a dumbshit AI-bot struggling to comprehend human communications.
or
a deliberately contentious arsehole.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1589713723085.jpg, 46KiB, 404x360

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:44:27 No.14123078 Report

Quoted By: >>14123085

>>14123040
>you measure an amount of voltage whose value you don't yet know is not an unknown amount of voltage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:45:19 No.14123082 Report

Quoted By: >>14123086

>>14123070
Says the bot programmed to devolves into namecalling and fallacy instead of logical engagement.
Logic is built into human observation even if your AI can only string together combinations of words to try to make sense of logic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:46:27 No.14123085 Report

Quoted By: >>14123091

>>14123078
The value itself isn't unknown, ie undefined, you are just not smart enough to know what it is on your own without a calculator to tell you, it is unknown to you, but now unknown in general.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:46:56 No.14123086 Report

Quoted By: >>14123090

>>14123082
>logical engagement.
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:48:25 No.14123090 Report

Quoted By: >>14123095

>>14123086
Exactly, you confuse emotional outbursts like uncontrollable laughter with logical debate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:48:26 No.14123091 Report

Quoted By: >>14123098 >>14123103

>>14123085
>ie undefined,
undefined now?
so you back to measuring Planck, not just measuring!!!
you can't measure below planck, give it up tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:49:27 No.14123095 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123090
>logical debate.
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!
you ramble incoherent halfwit horseshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:50:21 No.14123098 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123091
nope i have been saying that the in language of math unknown = undefined since a very long time ago.
>>14122749

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:50:45 No.14123099 Report

Quoted By: >>14123107 >>14123795 >>14123877

>>14123040
>The amount of time in a meter is unknown,
If I use Flash ADC then its just a matter of propagation delay...
so yeh, I do know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:51:22 No.14123103 Report

Quoted By: >>14123106

>>14123091
You can't actually measure a planck, either, its just a guess based on calculations even though you can calculate smaller units than a planck.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO .......jpg, 55KiB, 540x542

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:53:02 No.14123106 Report

Quoted By: >>14123125

>>14123103
yeh, I stated that already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:53:07 No.14123107 Report

Quoted By: >>14123114

>>14123099
No, you only know how long it takes light to travel a meter, you have no idea how much time is in a meter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:55:49 No.14123114 Report

Quoted By: >>14123117

>>14123107
>you have no idea how much time is in a meter.
yeh, I can tally the cascaded propagation delays.
meters don't have to use only Successive approximation ADC.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:58:01 No.14123117 Report

Quoted By: >>14123120 >>14123124

>>14123114
Propagation of what?
That is all you are measuring the time something take to move a meter, you aren't measuring the number of seconds in a meter because that value doesn't exist, meters are measured in meters, not seconds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 11:59:36 No.14123120 Report

Quoted By: >>14123131

>>14123117
>you aren't measuring the number of seconds in a meter because that value doesn't exist,
electronic circuits have propagation delay.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4chan expert.jpg, 79KiB, 570x587

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:00:42 No.14123124 Report

Quoted By: >>14123137

>>14123117
>electronic circuits are instantaneous......

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:01:04 No.14123125 Report

Quoted By: >>14123138

>>14123106
Ok good you agree and since you can measure nothing with any multimeter, zero is the smallest measurable value, you can't measure an infinitesimal or a planck length, so you can't claim those are the smallest measurable value because they are greater than zero, only zero can be claimed to be the smallest measurable value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:02:05 No.14123131 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123120
Yes so you are measuring the movement of electrons in meters per second you aren't measuring how many seconds are in a meter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:03:06 No.14123137 Report

Quoted By: >>14123147

>>14123124
>electronics measure how many seconds are in a meter because they measure rate of change of an electron's position in meters per second.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:03:08 No.14123138 Report

Quoted By: >>14123143

>>14123125
>only zero can be claimed to be the smallest measurable value.
you're like a tard with physical handicaps as well.

when we say Planck is the smallest measurable amount..
we automatically mean value greater than zero.
you're obviously a spastic AI-bot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:05:02 No.14123143 Report

Quoted By: >>14123150

>>14123138
Except you just said that you can't actually measure a planck, so you admit you have been lying.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:05:34 No.14123147 Report

Quoted By: >>14123151

>>14123137
>>electronics measure how many seconds are in a meter because they measure rate of change of an electron's position in meters per second.
the sample time is fixed, retard.
the input circuit determines this.

>they measure rate of change of an electron's position in meters per second.
what is DC, retard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:06:38 No.14123150 Report

Quoted By: >>14123164

>>14123143
you can't measure anything less than a planck, but greater than zero.....
you're clearly an OCD, halfwit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:06:45 No.14123151 Report

Quoted By: >>14123153 >>14123161

>>14123147
So you think measuring the time it takes a direct current signal to switch on or off is a measurement of the number of seconds in a meter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:07:41 No.14123153 Report

Quoted By: >>14123169

>>14123151
the ADC input circuitry allows an amount of time to settle....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:10:53 No.14123161 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123151
>the ADC input circuitry allows an amount of time to settle....
it measures the voltage drop across a resistor.
its called "sample and hold".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:11:29 No.14123164 Report

Quoted By: >>14123165 >>14123176

>>14123150
>you can't measure anything less than a planck
You can't measure anything equal to a planck either, that claim is a complete fabrication, it is not the smallest measurable value, zero is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:12:25 No.14123165 Report

Quoted By: >>14123174

>>14123164
OCD halfwit, it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:13:38 No.14123169 Report

Quoted By: >>14123180

>>14123153
And you think that value relating to input turn on/off time is the same as the number of seconds in each meter distance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:14:39 No.14123174 Report

Quoted By: >>14123180

>>14123165
I get it, the only thing you can do when proven wrong is say mean names that totally hurt my feelings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:14:57 No.14123176 Report

Quoted By: >>14123187

>>14123164
>You can't measure anything equal to a planck either,
yeh, one planck unit is the smallest value you can measure above zero.

you lost the argument, so resort back to your "zero" is the smallest argument, which nobody said it wasn't... you just too farking stupid to understand human communication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:16:26 No.14123180 Report

Quoted By: >>14123190

>>14123169
I can test the circuits in my meter, and not give a shit about yours.
I don't use yours.
>>14123174
yeh, one planck unit is the smallest value you can measure above zero.

you lost the argument, so resort back to your "zero" is the smallest argument, which nobody said it wasn't... you just too farking stupid to understand human communication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:18:45 No.14123187 Report

Quoted By: >>14123191

>>14123176
>one planck unit is the smallest value you can measure above zero.
Prove it, show me one single multimeter, ruler, or other sensor with that low of a threshold or margin of error.

You can't because you already conceded that nobody has actually measured anything that small, it is just a largely dismissed idea based on certain calculations and bad assumptions, there are units smaller than a planck see >>14108901, but any measuring device can measure zero, so zero is the smallest possible value and planck/2!=0, it has a different nonzero value that is greater than zero but less than planck, so math can easily measure something smaller than a planck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:20:29 No.14123190 Report

Quoted By: >>14123207

>>14123180
>I can test the circuits in my meter, and not give a shit about yours.
Ok, but you don't understand how to use them, you think you have a device that can measure the number of seconds in each meter of length which is nonsense.

>one planck unit is the smallest value you can measure above zero.
No you don't have anything that can make that measurement, you are lying or completely misrepresenting the truth due to confusion at best.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:20:39 No.14123191 Report

Quoted By: >>14123199

>>14123187
it says "planck" is the smallest non zero unit that can be measured, not thats the smallest unit we can measure with our current technology...

dumbarse AI whom can't understand how humans communicate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:22:11 No.14123199 Report

Quoted By: >>14123219

>>14123191
>it says "planck" is the smallest non zero unit that can be measured
No, it disproves that statement and shows no academic ever actually made it, it is just some assumption that appeared on wikipedia that didn't get corrected and deleted before people like you decided it was gospel without ever doing the measurement or even the calculations yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:23:25 No.14123207 Report

Quoted By: >>14123217

>>14123190
>No you don't have anything that can make that measurement, you are lying or completely misrepresenting the truth due to confusion at best.
it says "planck" is the smallest non zero unit that can be measured, not thats the smallest unit we can measure with our current technology...

dumbarse AI whom can't understand how humans communicate.
>Ok, but you don't understand how to use them, you think you have a device that can measure the number of seconds in each meter of length which is nonsense.
this is complete shit you came up with yourself..
DC Ampere meters measure the Voltage drop across a known resistor...
You're obviously talking complete shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:26:54 No.14123217 Report

Quoted By: >>14123226

>>14123207
>it says "planck" is the smallest non zero unit that can be measured
That is not what "Contrary to popular belief" means, so when someone says "contrary to popular belief planck is not the smallest unit of measurement" it doesn't mean that it is, it means it is a common misconception.

>DC Ampere meters measure the Voltage drop across a known resistor...
Yes which is a measure of how many meters per second the location of an electron moves through the circuit, it is not a measurement of how many seconds there are in every meter length that is an unknown undefined nonsensical value.

You are the one who clearly does not understand the language of math.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO randomly chosen from google search.jpg, 236KiB, 837x1856

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:27:15 No.14123219 Report

Quoted By: >>14123223 >>14123229

>>14123199
No, its scientifically accepted.
you an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:28:41 No.14123223 Report

Quoted By: >>14123235

>>14123219
That clearly says there is something smaller than a planck though and that is not peer reviewed science, it is just some popsci article on a random blog.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:29:14 No.14123226 Report

Quoted By: >>14123237

>>14123217
>Yes which is a measure of how many meters per second the location of an electron moves through the circuit, it is not a measurement of how many seconds there are in every meter length that is an unknown undefined nonsensical value.
>You are the one who clearly does not understand the language of math.
the meter doesn't use a timing circuit for this..
it just measures a voltage across an internal resistor.
>That is not what "Contrary to popular belief" means, so when someone says "contrary to popular belief planck is not the smallest unit of measurement" it doesn't mean that it is, it means it is a common misconception.
no, it means you're an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:30:11 No.14123229 Report

Quoted By: >>14123251

>>14123219
The only BBC science you have ever done is figuring out how many you can fit in your dumb face at one time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:30:56 No.14123235 Report

Quoted By: >>14123240

>>14123223
>That clearly says there is something smaller than a planck.
fark your daft....
I already stated planck is the smallest non zero unit we can measure but is not the smallest "actual" unit existing above zero....

you're obviously a special needs idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:31:11 No.14123237 Report

Quoted By: >>14123256

>>14123226
>it just measures a voltage across an internal resistor.
Then how is it a measurement of how many seconds are in a meter length?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:32:12 No.14123240 Report

Quoted By: >>14123261

>>14123235
>its not actually the smallest
>we can't actually measure it
>Therefore, it the smallest value we can measure.
Your logic is pathetically laughable.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO top of the search.jpg, 115KiB, 1101x534

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:34:46 No.14123251 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123229
>NOOOOOOO!!! BBC lies!!!!
go find me a reputable site stating the minimum unit we "can" measure is not Planck unit...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:36:09 No.14123256 Report

Quoted By: >>14123269

>>14123237
>Then how is it a measurement of how many seconds are in a meter length?
it measures the voltage drop across an internal resistor (after settle-time) and doesn't give two fucks about all that psychosis your rambling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:37:41 No.14123261 Report

Quoted By: >>14123266

>>14123240
Planck is not the smallest unit that exists.
Planck is the smallest unit that can be measured.

you must be the dumbest tard on Earth to not understand this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:40:22 No.14123266 Report

Quoted By: >>14123270

>>14123261
>Planck is the smallest unit that can be measured.
No, it can not currently be measured, you have already admitted nobody has measured it and it is based only on mathematical value calculations rather than other types of measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:41:23 No.14123269 Report

Quoted By: >>14123277

>>14123256
So it has nothing to do with time or seconds and doesn't actually measure the amount of seconds in a meter, has nothing to do with the conversation, but I am the one with irrelevant information?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:41:36 No.14123270 Report

Quoted By: >>14123272 >>14123278

>>14123266
>No, it can not currently be measured
I'm starting can EVER be measured, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:42:35 No.14123272 Report

Quoted By: >>14123288 >>14123348 >>14123352

>>14123270
You are basing the claim on pure calculation without any measurement which proves calculation>measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:43:32 No.14123277 Report

Quoted By: >>14123284

>>14123269
>So it has nothing to do with time or seconds and doesn't actually measure the amount of seconds in a meter,
the multimeter measuring DC has no timing circuitry needed to measure a voltage drop across an internal resistor.
you're measuring a voltage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:43:35 No.14123278 Report

Quoted By: >>14123292

>>14123270
>You are basing the claim on the measurements of pure calculation without any other measurement which proves calculation>measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:44:35 No.14123284 Report

Quoted By: >>14123295

>>14123277
Then how are you measuring seconds per meter if you aren't measuring seconds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:45:18 No.14123288 Report

Quoted By: >>14123303

>>14123272
its every site you google, you on the other hand have provided no contrary evidence.
>I looked for anything stating planck isn't the smallest unit that can be measured.
yeh, I know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:47:51 No.14123292 Report

Quoted By: >>14123311

>>14123278
our current understanding of physics tells us planck is the smallest measurable unit that we will ever be able to measure... its a limitation of physics.
*not smallest unit existing.

show me something proving otherwise, or fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:48:55 No.14123295 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123284
>Then how are you measuring seconds per meter if you aren't measuring seconds?
DC meters don't need to.
they're measuring a voltage drop across a series resistor.
thats how current is measured.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:50:36 No.14123303 Report

Quoted By: >>14123309

>>14123288
I provided an actual calculated measurement of planck/2 rather than some theoretical thing that doesn't actually calculate or doesn't calculate to be 0 as you claimed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:53:02 No.14123309 Report

Quoted By: >>14123317

>>14123303
>calculated measurement
not the same thing, you retarded nigger.
you have a thing that you do not know what value it is and must measure it to find out..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:53:21 No.14123311 Report

Quoted By: >>14123324

>>14123292
So there is no actual measurement to back it up, you are just appealing to authority?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:54:22 No.14123317 Report

Quoted By: >>14123324 >>14123332

>>14123309
Its more direct measurement evidence than you have.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:56:11 No.14123324 Report

Quoted By: >>14123360

>>14123311
you're literaly dumber than shit.
>NOOOOOO!!!! Physicists can't make educated assumptions
>>14123317
>Its more direct measurement evidence than you have.
I gave you a box with an unknown value, you lost your shit because you can't horseshit your way around it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 12:58:18 No.14123332 Report

Quoted By: >>14123363

>>14123317
sorry, it wasn't a planck...
that was something a round about a planck..
I needed you to give me the actual value...
you failed miserably.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:04:26 No.14123348 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123272
>calculation>measurement.
measurement>calculation

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:06:58 No.14123352 Report

Quoted By: >>14123364

>>14123272
>calculation>measurement.
>I made a model and it made a prediction.
>my peers measured what it really was and got vastly different value to what I calculated.
yeh, that means your model is wrong, stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:10:33 No.14123360 Report

Quoted By: >>14123374

>>14123324
>I can make assumptions to prove my case, but you can't

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:11:34 No.14123363 Report

Quoted By: >>14123366

>>14123332
No, google can calculate with planck value, I gave you the values it produces, wolphramalpha can do the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:12:35 No.14123364 Report

Quoted By: >>14123369

>>14123352
>A calculator is only a model, the calculations they make that prove me wrong don't actually count, it only counts when it shows I am right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:13:11 No.14123366 Report

Quoted By: >>14123370

>>14123363
>No, google can calculate with planck value
but it wasn't a planck, it was something around a planck...
now tell me what half of that is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:14:27 No.14123369 Report

Quoted By: >>14123373

>>14123364
>it only counts when it shows I am right.
so you're agreeing that your calculator didn't measure anything....
your peers did measure, and turns out your calculator was full of shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:14:57 No.14123370 Report

Quoted By: >>14123377

>>14123366
call the original value used x, then half of that is x/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:15:58 No.14123373 Report

Quoted By: >>14123377

>>14123369
No I paraphrasing your claims that the only thing you think calculators can measure is how right your opinions are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:16:39 No.14123374 Report

Quoted By: >>14123375

>>14123360
>I'm stating that it is possible to measure a value I don't yet know that is below planck..
great, now show me a scientist that has had a crack at proving exactly that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:17:15 No.14123375 Report

Quoted By: >>14123380

>>14123374
Every scientist ever starts by calibrating their measuring device to 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:18:10 No.14123377 Report

Quoted By: >>14123379 >>14123383

>>14123370
yeh, I need to know x.
>>14123373
calculators don't measure, you're just a spazz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:19:30 No.14123379 Report

Quoted By: >>14123384

>>14123377
They measure value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:20:02 No.14123380 Report

Quoted By: >>14123386

>>14123375
great now measure this x/2...
I know its round about a planck, but I need you to give me an actual value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:20:43 No.14123383 Report

Quoted By: >>14123389

>>14123377
>yeh, I need to know x.
You are the one who defined the thing I was calling x, you tell me, if google is not actually calculating with planck, then what is this theoretical almost planck value you are claiming exists in google's calculations?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:21:18 No.14123384 Report

Quoted By: >>14123391

>>14123379
piss fucking weak.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:21:44 No.14123386 Report

Quoted By: >>14123394

>>14123380
>I know its round about a planck
Then you already know the answer, just take that value that you know and divide it by 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:22:30 No.14123389 Report

Quoted By: >>14123392

>>14123383
>You are the one who defined the thing I was calling x
I will also need to know what x is...
as well as x/2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:22:45 No.14123391 Report

Quoted By: >>14123394

>>14123384
Oh no, another mean name, whatever shall I do, my logic has been completely disproven and my worldview shattered because you used a curse word.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:23:46 No.14123392 Report

Quoted By: >>14123397

>>14123389
You are the one who claimed to observe it, you introduced the idea and defined it, you tell me a more precise value and I will give you a more precise measurement until then vague claims get vague replies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:23:51 No.14123394 Report

Quoted By: >>14123399

>>14123391
>>14123386
I don't know the value...
you tell me, thats what your calculator is for.
give me "the" actual value, or fuck off schizo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:25:19 No.14123397 Report

Quoted By: >>14123403

>>14123392
I gave the box containing the value to be measured..
I don't know what the value is.
its now right in front of you..
now tell me what it is using your tardy calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:27:08 No.14123399 Report

Quoted By: >>14123406 >>14123407 >>14123417 >>14123427

>>14123394
>you tell me, thats what your calculator is for.
No, the calculator only works when you use accepted values that have previously been observed, not when you try to invent unknown undefined values like the amount of time in a meter or the amount google is actually off with the value they use as a planck, until then I will still have to assume google's planck is the traditionally accepted value, not some near value you claim exists, but can not precisely define or give the value of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:29:17 No.14123403 Report

Quoted By: >>14123406

>>14123397
Vague questions get vague answers, x is the variable answer you get until you come up with more precise values to input.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:32:31 No.14123406 Report

Quoted By: >>14123489

>>14123403
You will never be an engineer.
you literally fucking useless.
>>14123399
>No, the calculator only works when you use accepted values that have previously been observed
right, so your a useless faggot.
ok

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:34:15 No.14123407 Report

Quoted By: >>14123490

>>14123399
hey, my voltage meter is broken...
can you use your calculator to measure voltages in this circuit so I can work out whats broken?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:39:52 No.14123417 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123399
>you try to invent unknown undefined values like the amount of time in a meter or the amount google is actually off with the value they use as a planck,
it wasn't ever a planck in the first place...
I know is about a little more than a planck, but I don't know how much;
then I halved it...
now use your calculator to measure it..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 13:42:06 No.14123427 Report

Quoted By: >>14123494

>>14123399
>like the amount of time in a meter
how do we measure current?

what is propagation delay?
what is a Flash ADC?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:08:44 No.14123489 Report

Quoted By: >>14123527

>>14123406
No, your claim that the planck length in the calculator diifers by an unknown amount from the planck length in reality is useless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:09:46 No.14123490 Report

Quoted By: >>14123527

>>14123407
A calculator only measures raw values, it doesn't measure voltage values of a circuit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:12:09 No.14123494 Report

Quoted By: >>14123527

>>14123427
>how do we measure current?
Not in seconds, it is measured in amperes.

>what is propagation delay?
Not measured in voltage, measured in seconds, but it doesn't tell you how many seconds are in every metric unit of length because that is not a defined value, it is a nonsense statement that can't accurately be measured and if it could, by definition would be in seconds, not in voltage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:23:32 No.14123523 Report

Quoted By: >>14123531

>>14122514
Why do you keep asking? Are chatbots like you allowed to chat with other bots or are you programmed to leave the thread if you detect another chatbot?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:24:19 No.14123527 Report

Quoted By: >>14123561

>>14123489
no, you're a tard talking shit.
I have a value, something over a planck..
I halved it, now use your calculator to tell me what its actual value is.
>>14123490
>A calculator only measures raw values
it doesn't measure anything.
>>14123494
>Not in seconds, it is measured in amperes.
I asked how do we measure it..
not in what units is it measured..
stop being a contentious smart ass and answer the question.
>>14123494
>Not measured in voltage, measured in seconds,
you make a big faggot about me not able to tell how long my multimeter takes to measure voltage...
I told you I can work that out.
you now talk a bunch of shit to change the subject.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:25:21 No.14123531 Report

Quoted By: >>14123539 >>14123583

>>14123523
You're way too stupid to be human.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:26:43 No.14123539 Report

Quoted By: >>14123550

>>14123531
Then why are you the one who has to keep doing stupid things like use fallacies and childish namecalling instead of consistently employing reasonable logic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:29:14 No.14123550 Report

Quoted By: >>14123571

>>14123539
>consistently employing reasonable logic?
from you?
nope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:32:53 No.14123561 Report

Quoted By: >>14123587

>>14123527
>something
That is a mathematically undefined value, you will always get an undefined result if you try to add "something" the closest you can get is a variable value such as x.

>it doesn't measure anything.
It measures value otherwise you wouldn't consistently get 0 every single time you try to measure 1-1.

>I asked how do we measure it.
You measure it in amperes with an ammeter according to the specific ammeters instructions, not in seconds, there is no way you can ever measure a circuit to find out how many seconds are in a meter length unit, and I can't give a specific enough answer because you are not answering a specific enough question, different ammeters come with different measurement instructions.

>you make a big faggot about me not able to tell how long my multimeter takes to measure voltage...
I never asked you how to measure voltage, I asked how to possibly measure the amount of seconds in a meter length and you came up with some incomprehensible bullshit about circuits and volts.
How do you use a circuit that has nothing to do with time to measure how much time is in a length?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:35:38 No.14123571 Report

Quoted By: >>14123590

>>14123550
I haven't once changed what I think the value of planck/2 is, you are the one who has shifted between zero, calculators can't do that, it is some unknown value between 0 and planck, and other nonsense, but I have stuck to my claims from the beginning it is the value produced by google's calculator when you input the planck value and divide by 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:38:15 No.14123583 Report

Quoted By: >>14123594

>>14123531
So if I told you that you have definitely replied to a chatbot ITT you won't have to close the thread because of your programming?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:39:19 No.14123587 Report

Quoted By: >>14123608

>>14123561
>That is a mathematically undefined value, you will always get an undefined result if you try to add "something" the closest you can get is a variable value such as x.
you can't measure anything between zero and planck.
lmao, I told you this ITT and you didn't previously know.
>>14123561
>You measure it in amperes with an ammeter according to the specific ammeters instructions, not in seconds, there is no way you can ever measure a circuit to find out how many seconds are in a meter length unit, and I can't give a specific enough answer because you are not answering a specific enough question, different ammeters come with different measurement instructions.
You measure current by measuring a voltage drop across a series resistor.
>>14123561
>I never asked you how to measure voltage, I asked how to possibly measure the amount of seconds in a meter length and you came up with some incomprehensible bullshit about circuits and volts.
>How do you use a circuit that has nothing to do with time to measure how much time is in a length?
the amounts of seconds in a meter length has fuck all to do with my question how does a DC meter measure current..
you wriggle around like a turd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:40:38 No.14123590 Report

Quoted By: >>14123624

>>14123571
>when you input the planck value and divide by 2.
the value wasn't planck in the first place.
it was something around a planck.
now measure it with your calculator, tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:42:11 No.14123594 Report

Quoted By: >>14123601

>>14123583
>you have definitely replied to a chatbot ITT
makes sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:45:02 No.14123601 Report

Quoted By: >>14123606

>>14123594
Does that mean you have to leave or not, does your programming prohibit you from engaging in chats with chatbots or your programmer didn't think of possible race conditions to cut off, just allowing the thread limits to take care of it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:46:45 No.14123606 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123601
how would I know? you haven't told me yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:47:12 No.14123608 Report

Quoted By: >>14123627

>>14123587
>you can't measure anything between zero and planck.
You can't, the calculator built into google can, maybe you need to upgrade your chatbot software.

>You measure current by measuring a voltage drop across a series resistor.
lol no, you have to measure amps in series, not in parallel.

>the amounts of seconds in a meter length has fuck all to do with my question how does a DC meter measure current..
The question came first, your answer involving DC meters has nothing to do with figuring out how many seconds are in a meter length unit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:51:01 No.14123624 Report

Quoted By: >>14123637

>>14123590
>it was something around a planck.
Yes that "something" is zero because the google value is identical to a planck since the planck length is a measurement made through calculation rather than instrumental measurement with transducers and you don't have any measurements or even calculations to prove otherwise.

You are the tard trying to prove me wrong by introducing some imaginary something variable you can't actually measure, calculate, or logically explain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:51:14 No.14123627 Report

Quoted By: >>14123639

>>14123608
>You can't, the calculator built into google can, maybe you need to upgrade your chatbot software.
you gave me a wrong answer..
it can't be 0.5planck, I had more than planck to start with before dividing in half.
>>14123608
>lol no, you have to measure amps in series, not in parallel.
the series resistor is inside the DCmeter, dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:55:12 No.14123637 Report

Quoted By: >>14123649

>>14123624
you're wriggling about like a turd..
I have an unknown value more than Planck, but less than two Planck.
here you go, its now right in front of you....

you can't tell me what that value is, nor can you tell me what that value is divided in half...
keep squirming turd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:55:37 No.14123639 Report

Quoted By: >>14123645 >>14123648

>>14123627
>I had more than planck to start with before dividing in half.
What are you even talking about? That is exactly how dividing in half works, you are left with a lower value than you originally had, it is lower by exactly a half because you divided it in half.

>the series resistor is inside the DCmeter, dumbass.
Nope you still measure in series and either way, measuring the current in a resistor will never tell you how many seconds are in a meter unit length, there is no reason continuing this line of discussion because it has nothing to do with your original claims.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:57:29 No.14123645 Report

Quoted By: >>14123649

>>14123639
>left with a lower value than you originally had, it is lower by exactly a half because you divided it in half.
the original value was unknown..
the half that value is unknown because I didn't know the original value..
now measure it with your calculator, tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:59:24 No.14123648 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123639
>Nope you still measure in series and either way, measuring the current in a resistor will never tell you how many seconds are in a meter unit length, there is no reason continuing this line of discussion because it has nothing to do with your original claims.
your probes are in series... inside the DCmeter is a series resistor that drops a voltage across it..
measuring that voltage drop is how you measure current..
you babbling baboon Igno ramous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 14:59:49 No.14123649 Report

Quoted By: >>14123655

>>14123637
>I have an unknown value more than Planck, but less than two Planck.
The value is planck + x as soon as you tell me what this mysterious amount is you have invented that has nothing to do with how google calculates planck, I can give you a more precise answer, until then it is just nonsense you are inventing because your logical argument failed a long time ago when you admitted planck lengths can't be measured with any existing measurement instrumentation and you are valuing calculation well above measurement because you understand calculation with math is how you provide proof and measurement can only give possible answers within a certain margin of error, so are always going to be more prone to error than raw calculation value measurements.

>>14123645
>the half that value is unknown because I didn't know the original value..
I already told you your invented value is zero, there is no difference between a planck length and the planck length googles uses for calculations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:01:33 No.14123655 Report

Quoted By: >>14123673

>>14123649
you have no idea what the original value was, therefore you have no idea what value that is divided in half.
you're all horseshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:06:44 No.14123673 Report

Quoted By: >>14123705

>>14123655
>you have no idea what the original value was
Yes, I do because planck length is defined by calculation of other variables and they are the same value google and wolphramalpha use unless you can prove otherwise and show there is actually some nonzero value that exists equal to actual planck length calculations minus google's planch length calculations.

You are horseshit, you can't back up your claims with actual calculation, you substitute proof with name calling and other fallacies like strawmen, begging the question and trying to introduce a value of the gaps to somehow prove there a value greater than zero that is the smallest possible value that can be measured when any ammeter or other type of multimeter has no problem measuring 0 and that google's calculations are not the true calculations of a planck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:14:26 No.14123705 Report

Quoted By: >>14123725

>>14123673
lmao, to highlight your idiocy, we changed the value to something I don't know more than planck and less than two plancks,
now you shit and squirm because you can't tell me what that value is.

hey, make it any value between 10 and 100, now measure that with your calculator and tell me its actual value, tard.
keep coping tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:17:19 No.14123721 Report

Quoted By: >>14123728

>>14121482
>>14121983
>>14122396
>>14122872
>Look at me I'm a faggot lmao.
Is it possible to achieve 700 posts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:17:45 No.14123725 Report

Quoted By: >>14123732 >>14123734

>>14123705
>I promise, there is a whole real integer number between 1 and 2, I don't know what it it, but it is definitely there and since you are the one who believes in numbers, the burden of proof is on you to prove there is a number between 1 and 2 and show it to me on a calculator, otherwise none of the other numbers actually exist either and calculation is a lie. Oh and you can't use google or other calculators to prove it because they don't use the right numbers either.
This is your logic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:18:45 No.14123728 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123721
reached your goal yet, or you still just potential?
keep at it tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:19:10 No.14123732 Report

Quoted By: >>14123738

>>14123725
>Oh and there definitely are not zero numbers between 1 and 2, that doesn't count because I say so, zero is not something, it is something else entirely, you can't use it..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:20:16 No.14123734 Report

Quoted By: >>14123742

>>14123725
your calculator can't measure anything.
your a tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:21:48 No.14123738 Report

Quoted By: >>14123750

>>14123732
>let me go back to the zero argument that I made up out of my tardy inability to understand human communication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:22:38 No.14123742 Report

Quoted By: >>14123754

>>14123734
It measures the value of 1-1 the same every time, it has less margin of error than your cheap ammeter you somehow think will measure the amount of seconds in a meter stick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:24:28 No.14123750 Report

Quoted By: >>14123757

>>14123738
Its still true, zero is the smallest measurable value and any meter can measure zero in its units within some margin of error, but none of your measurement tools besides a calculator can measure a planck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:25:20 No.14123754 Report

Quoted By: >>14123764

>>14123742
>cheap ammeter you somehow think will measure the amount of seconds in a meter stick.
it has an internal resistor in series with the current flowing throw the device..
it measures voltage drop across that internal series resistor..
too bad you're too tardy to understand it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:26:32 No.14123757 Report

Quoted By: >>14123774

>>14123750
>Its still true, zero is the smallest measurable value.
yeh, thats what I said...
You figured otherwise because you/re a tard whom doesn't understand human communication.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:28:59 No.14123764 Report

Quoted By: >>14123778

>>14123754
None of that means it measures the amount of seconds in a meter stick, what are you even talking about, why do you keep bringing up resistors, how does this relate to the postulate in question? It doesn't matter how you hook it up to a resistor it will never measure the number of seconds in a meter of length, math calls unknowns undefined and everything you keep bringing up is undefined nonsense lacking anything approaching a mathematical proof or scientific demonstration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:31:10 No.14123774 Report

Quoted By: >>14123783

>>14123757
So what exactly is your argument, why do you keep bringing up planck, resistors, and sandcastles, what does that have to do with the existence of infinity, how does the smallest possible value, whether zero or your theory, in any way related to the largest conceivable limit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:31:55 No.14123778 Report

Quoted By: >>14123795

>>14123764
>None of that means it measures the amount of seconds in a meter stick,
you're the spazoid talking about seconds in a meter stick...
are you too daft to realize I was answering the measuring current question, not time, stupid.

>I'm a tard so watch me make up irrelevant shit the other anon never even responded to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:33:08 No.14123783 Report

Quoted By: >>14123795 >>14123861

>>14123774
>what does that have to do with the existence of infinity,
all this irrelevant shit is what you started, not me..
I just answered the current question you babbled on about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:37:31 No.14123795 Report

Quoted By: >>14123820 >>14123861

>>14123778
>>14123778
No, you introduced some stupid nonsequitur about circuits as a proof that you can measure the amount of second in a meter
>>14123040
>The amount of time in a meter
>>14123099
>If I use Flash ADC then its just a matter of propagation delay...
>so yeh, I do know.

No you don't know that doesn't mean anything a flash adc will not help you figure out how much time is in a length.

>>14123783
No you are giving irrelevant shit because of above, there is no way to measure the amount of time in a length and no amount of nonsense and namecalling will make a logical time measurement of a length.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:43:39 No.14123820 Report

Quoted By: >>14123877

>>14123795
>how much time is in a length.
I at no time answered this question.
I answered the current question.
you're babbling on about a question I didn't even discuss.
lmao, you're even stupider than I thought!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 15:58:14 No.14123861 Report

Quoted By: >>14123916

>>14123783
>>14123795
>>14123040
>but you don't yet know the amount of time it takes you to run a meter until you measure.

Oh wait I get it, you were confused when I said run a meter because you have either never got off your fat ass to run a meter and have no idea how long it would take or you are a bot without the concept of run relating to anything other than electronic measurement because you don't have legs, you only run code.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:02:25 No.14123877 Report

Quoted By: >>14123891 >>14123916

>>14123820
This reply chain traces right back to >>14123099 that is the source of the non sequitur discussion about circuits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:07:44 No.14123891 Report

Quoted By: >>14123916

>>14123877
Which itself was a non sequitur discussion that came about because you won't admit you were wrong about confusing unknown and undefined since only undefined exits in math, unknown only exists in your own ignorance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:15:10 No.14123916 Report

Quoted By: >>14123942

>>14123861
>>14123877
>>14123891
all this cope....
>undefined
exactly, you can't measure it nor did you even know you couldn't measure anything that small before this thread...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:21:21 No.14123942 Report

Quoted By: >>14123967 >>14123976

>>14123916
Infinity is defined, though, its not small.
What are you talking about? I have been saying you can measure zero, nothing is smaller than zero, you didn't come up with any value greater than zero but still the smallest number, you just said it was unknown and shifted the burden of measuring an unknown to me while I am saying math doesn't do unknowns, it does variable and undefined, but planck is neither and none of this has anything to do with measuring the voltage across a resistor to get the in series amps proving that you have measured the time in a length.

Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:27:44 No.14123967 Report

Quoted By: >>14123995

>>14123942
>NOOOOOO!!!! MUH ZERO MEASUREMENT.
we call that too piss weak to measure 0.2 planck.

thats not a measurement, that cope.
>I have been saying you can measure zero, nothing is smaller than zero
Nobody is disputing zero is the smallest value, retard. Thats the same horseshit you babble on about when your brain suffers another schism.

Any fucking human understands previous statements stating planck is the smallest unit measurable obviously means smallest unit above zero..
you continually coming back to this proves you're a schizzo, and didn't even know anything about planck being the smallest we can measure..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:29:38 No.14123976 Report

Quoted By: >>14124000

>>14123942
I get it now, you've got an OCD mental issue..
yeh, that makes sense.
now spin around anticlockwise 7 times and wash your hands an even number to times.
all good now, so you're neurosis won't explode...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:34:16 No.14123995 Report

Quoted By: >>14124007 >>14124011

>>14123967
>Nobody is disputing zero is the smallest value
You are disputing that there are values between zero and planck, though and that is the point of saying you can measure planck/2=0 which is wrong planck isn't the smallest unit above 0 and it isn't even the smallest measurable, it has never been measured.

>zero argument
The fact that you whine about that instead of answering any relevant question demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about, you are just typing to see words on the screen at this point.

>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:36:20 No.14124000 Report

Quoted By: >>14124014 >>14124020

>>14123976
No thanks, you take your own doctors orders, I already have mine, but I will accept your post packed with fallacy to be another concession.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:39:40 No.14124007 Report

Quoted By:

>>14123995
*if a calculator doesn't measure value planck has never been measured

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:40:21 No.14124011 Report

Quoted By: >>14124027

>>14123995
>and it isn't even the smallest measurable,
holy fuck, this same idiocy again...
physicists state its the smallest measurable (non zero).
>it has never been measured.
they mean now and forever...
DERP.
>relevant question
>how does it relate to infinity
your definition of infinity are all related to potential not actual.
Thats the fucking argument.... again.
DERP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:41:30 No.14124014 Report

Quoted By: >>14124027

>>14124000
>I already have a script and will eagerly await any extra meds you can send me.
take have any to give..
too bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:42:51 No.14124020 Report

Quoted By: >>14124027

>>14124000
>I already have a script and will eagerly await any extra meds you can send me.
I have none to offer.
too bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:46:58 No.14124027 Report

Quoted By: >>14124068

>>14124011
>physicists state its the smallest measurable (non zero).
No, they don't, that is a common popsci misconception like we only use 10% of our brains see >>14108901

>your definition of infinity are all related to potential not actual.
A potential is only a potential because it is something that be actualized, if something can be actualized, then it exists, but none of this is science, take your aquinian potential/actual argument to /lit/, sandcastles, things exist in math by definition and infinity exists by definition as the uppermost limit in math.

>>14124014
>>14124020
>meds
>>>/pseudosci/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:47:37 No.14124030 Report

Quoted By: >>14124039 >>14124677

so, no examples of infinity given.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:49:34 No.14124039 Report

Quoted By: >>14124055

>>14124030
everything

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:52:03 No.14124046 Report

Quoted By: >>14124065

>A potential is only a potential because it is....
Its a limit.
You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:53:52 No.14124055 Report

Quoted By: >>14124069

>>14124039
>physicist claim they now the amount of things in the universe.
I meant an actually example, not gaylarping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:56:38 No.14124065 Report

Quoted By: >>14124076

>>14124046
>Its a limit.
Yes and limits exist.

>You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
A potential is something eventually approached or it wouldn't be potential if it never happened, something that never happens is impossible

>POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL
You just had an entire rant about how easy it was to actually measure a voltage potential across a resistor to find a current.

>POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE
Infinite potential is ALWAYS infinite.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO not INFINITE.png, 37KiB, 586x578

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:57:10 No.14124068 Report

Quoted By: >>14124081 >>14125194

>>14124027
>that is a common popsci
source: my ass.
>A potential is only a potential because it is....
Its a limit.
You approach a thing you will NEVER become.
POTENTIAL =/= ACTUAL

POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:57:39 No.14124069 Report

Quoted By: >>14124080

>>14124055
So everything doesn't actually exist?
Then what does? Give me an example of something that isn't part of everything, but actually exists.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Your tally will always be.jpg, 54KiB, 686x582

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 16:59:03 No.14124076 Report

Quoted By: >>14124088

>>14124065
gay larp.
potential << infinite

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:00:31 No.14124080 Report

Quoted By: >>14124096

>>14124069
>So everything doesn't actually exist?
I'm saying Physicists whom claim to know the total mass of the universe gives your everything answer perspective.
the universe is not infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:00:39 No.14124081 Report

Quoted By: >>14124175

>>14124068
>source: my ass.
I linked to the source of an actual physicist claiming the opposite of what you claim. I will link the source >>14108901 again because you obviously still haven't read it and you should.

>will NEVER become.
Then it is impossible, not a potential, we are not talking about impossibilities, we are talking about potential values.
>POTENTIAL will NEVER become INFINITE..
You can keep repeating yourself so can I
Infinite potential is ALWAYS infinite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:01:40 No.14124088 Report

Quoted By: >>14124104

>>14124076
>>>/lit/
Again your Aquinian jargon is not math or science.
Potential is mathematically undefined, infinite exists as the uppermost limit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:03:11 No.14124096 Report

Quoted By: >>14124180

>>14124080
There is more to everything than just mass.
I said everything, not all mass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:04:48 No.14124104 Report

Quoted By: >>14124117

>>14124088
>infinite exists as the uppermost limit.
and any number that is your current tally will equal 0.0/10 when rounded to 2 significant places.

Any finite number compared to infinity yields the same comparative.
Are you telling me you know a real number that is more than 0.1/10 of being infinite?
you are really this tardy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:11:12 No.14124117 Report

Quoted By: >>14124175

>>14124104
Infinity is not simply a number, it is a property of numeration that can sometimes be treated like a number, there you go trying to measure length in time with irrelevant circuits and non sequitur again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:24:09 No.14124175 Report

Quoted By: >>14124199

>>14124081
>I linked to the source
states planck isn't the smallest possible unit.
CHECK
states we already do calculations with units smaller than planck.
CHECK
states we can "physically measure" units smaller than that.
where?
>>14124117
>>14124081
>Infinite potential is ALWAYS infinite.
cope, you will never be infinite.
you will never be a woman.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:25:37 No.14124180 Report

Quoted By: >>14124206

>>14124096
>everything
LOOK, by saying everything you're expecting a free pass because something infinite is obviously included in everything.
congrats, you've found a loophole.
well done.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:33:29 No.14124199 Report

Quoted By: >>14124215

>>14124175
>states we can "physically measure" units smaller than that.
It doesn't need to say that he is disproves your misconception about planck being the smallest anything, the instruction manuals that come with any measuring device will tell you how to physically measure zero units (which is still smaller than planck).

cope, you will always just be one small part of infinity, your life is as tiny as replaceable as the logic behind your arguments, you never had potential, you are actually just a nobody and always will be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:35:40 No.14124206 Report

Quoted By: >>14124218

>>14124180
Its not a loophole, it is the most tangible example of infinity for people who don't accept mathematical abstractions like the absolute number line or the 3d plane and think there haven't been other examples of infinite sets and infinity presented repeatedly ITT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:38:43 No.14124215 Report

Quoted By: >>14124219

>>14124199
>It doesn't need to say that he is disproves your misconception about planck being the smallest anything.
lmao, thats my post, I posted that pic!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!
>rest of your post
Cope, the thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:40:19 No.14124218 Report

Quoted By: >>14124228

>>14124206
you know what OP wanted.
shit like an infinitely dense singularity.
that sounds better than your gay larp, tard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:40:46 No.14124219 Report

Quoted By: >>14124222

>>14124215
Then why are you still so confused about planck being the smallest anything?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:41:41 No.14124222 Report

Quoted By: >>14124241

>>14124219
>anything?
just the smallest unit of things we can physically measure.
Its obviously not the smallest unit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:43:25 No.14124228 Report

Quoted By: >>14124240

>>14124218
>you know what OP wanted.
All I know is OP wanted proof their assumptions were wrong and they got it.

>shit like an infinitely dense singularity.
That is just one part of everything.

>larp
You are the one who just said it was true even if you try to call it a loophole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:45:41 No.14124240 Report

Quoted By: >>14124248

>>14124228
>BUT!!!!! I SAID EVERYTHING!!!!
>PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!
>I NEED ATTENTION!!!
lmao.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:46:29 No.14124241 Report

Quoted By: >>14124251

>>14124222
Nope the smallest measurement is defined by the margin of error of a sensor and there is no such thing as a planck scale sensor, so there is no such thing as planck length measurement and you even posted a physicist explaining why planck isn't even the smallest unit of measurement, that is a common popsci misconception as he, in your source, pointed out. We can measure planck/2 with a calculator and it is not zero or undefined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:48:06 No.14124248 Report

Quoted By: >>14124256

>>14124240
>The mind of the histrionic accuses you of seeking attention while they use a fallacious caps lock attention seeking post with excess punctuation and unnecessary spacing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:48:25 No.14124251 Report

Quoted By: >>14124254 >>14124328 >>14124592

>>14124241
current tech has nothing to do with what I stated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:49:39 No.14124254 Report

Quoted By: >>14124265

>>14124251
It means all your measurement claims regarding smallest units and planck values are based in your imagination running wild with popsci misconceptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:49:44 No.14124256 Report

Quoted By: >>14124260

>>14124248
>NOOOOOOO!!!!!
>ITS YOU!!! NOT ME!!! I TELLS YA!!!!
more please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:50:59 No.14124260 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124256

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA (...).jpg, 130KiB, 1208x654

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:51:59 No.14124265 Report

Quoted By: >>14124291

>>14124254
>popsci misconceptions.
nope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 17:55:14 No.14124291 Report

Quoted By: >>14124328

>>14124265
You can't even measure something 10 planck lengths, why would you be able to measure 1 or less and why are you linking some popsci summary from google and what did mead ever measure approaching something as small as a planck?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:01:57 No.14124328 Report

Quoted By: >>14124439

>>14124291
see >>14124251
>popsci summary from.......
Fermilab...
>popsci
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:29:55 No.14124439 Report

Quoted By: >>14124458

>>14124328
You posted a screenshot of google,
Even the source it links to is not a peer review published fully factual article, it is a quick popsci summary by some pr intern at the fermilab and even they conclude "our understanding of subatomic gravity is incomplete, we know that the statement that the Planck length is the smallest possible length is on shaky ground" at the end which is why you posted from google instead of the actual source.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:31:10 No.14124445 Report

Quoted By:

>600 replies

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Planck lentgh.jpg, 959KiB, 1053x3157

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:32:54 No.14124458 Report

Quoted By: >>14124478 >>14124487 >>14124500 >>14124592

>>14124439
current tech has nothing to do with what I stated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:36:01 No.14124478 Report

Quoted By: >>14124496

>>14124458
Current tech has nothing to do with you putting words in physicists mouths about the absoluteness of their claims because you got all excited about a popsci article and want to believe really bad for some reason I still can't figure is relevant to this thread because you repeatedly avoided answering the base questions.

>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:37:36 No.14124487 Report

Quoted By: >>14124507

>>14124458
>Scientific American Article
>not popsci misconceptions

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:40:09 No.14124496 Report

Quoted By: >>14124500 >>14124528

>>14124478
>Current tech has nothing to do with you putting words in physicists mouths about the absoluteness of their claims
You thought it was because of the multimeter limitation, didn't you!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

>NO it not what I believe..
>it will all prove wrong!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:41:03 No.14124500 Report

Quoted By: >>14124513

>>14124458
>>14124496

Oh and >>14122415 even debunks that black hole claim because it is a newer post than the scientific American article that got you all emotional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:42:05 No.14124507 Report

Quoted By: >>14124528

>>14124487
yeh, they made it all up anon!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:43:25 No.14124513 Report

Quoted By: >>14124528

>>14124500
>Oh and >>14122415 even debunks that black hole claim because it is a newer post than the scientific American article that got you all emotional.
Is that what the voices in your head tell you!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:45:42 No.14124528 Report

Quoted By: >>14124537 >>14124549

>>14124496
Also, I told you multimeters don't get anywhere near planck and they don't measure lengths, the limitation of a multimeter is set by the manufacturer.

>>14124507
No, they just got excited like you and let their emotions lead them to misconceptions and misinterpreting the base science, its not their fault, they might actually be emotional enough about it to actually believe it just like you.

>>14124513
You mean my inner monologue that can actually read the source instead of someone like you who still doesn't acknowledge what it says or remember that the previous post already debunked the black hole wikipedia quoted a popsci magazine on?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:47:17 No.14124537 Report

Quoted By: >>14124561

>>14124528
>Also, I told you multimeters don't get anywhere near planck and they don't measure lengths, the limitation of a multimeter is set by the manufacturer.
holy fuck, you actually did think it was because of the multimeter limitation!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 45KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:50:29 No.14124549 Report

Quoted By: >>14124579

>>14124528
>No, they just got excited like you and let their emotions lead them to misconceptions and misinterpreting the base science, its not their fault, they might actually be emotional enough about it to actually believe it just like you.

>You mean my inner monologue that can actually read the source instead of someone like you who still doesn't acknowledge what it says or remember that the previous post already debunked the black hole wikipedia quoted a popsci magazine on?

yeh, and thats why wikipedia got changed and removed this bit, ey!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:52:13 No.14124561 Report

Quoted By: >>14124592

>>14124537
I don't even know what that means, the device that measures value is called a calculator and it has no problem measuring values smaller than planck, limitations of the measurement were always your assumption. Just catch your breath, count, thing, then organize your thoughts... all the emotional outbursts and uncontrolled scream laughter seems to be depleting the oxygen in your brain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:55:55 No.14124579 Report

Quoted By: >>14124601

>>14124549
>expected
>>>/lit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 18:58:54 No.14124592 Report

Quoted By: >>14124608

>>14124561
>limitations of the measurement were always your assumption
I told you >>14124251 >>14124458.
current tech has nothing to do with it.
Stop making up shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:01:27 No.14124601 Report

Quoted By: >>14124632

>>14124579
>NOOOOOO!!!!!!! I DON'T APPROVE!!!
>WIKI MUST OBEY ME!!!!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:03:04 No.14124608 Report

Quoted By: >>14124629

>>14124592
Consider, any amount of old, new, or future calculator or measurement tech and all your claims since >>14122146 will still be wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:06:29 No.14124629 Report

Quoted By: >>14124636

>>14124608
>Consider, any amount of old, new, or future calculator or measurement tech.
You will never prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:06:55 No.14124632 Report

Quoted By: >>14124636 >>14124647

>>14124601
They don't claim what you think they claim, wikipedia only says that some author of a scientific american article from may 2005 expects something, fine, talk about his expectations all you want in >>>/lit/, it doesn't have anything to do with this thread and you still can't answer my question because you don't have any real underlying thesis, you are just piling non sequitur on non sequitur on fallacy on fallacy because you don't understand what infinity is or how it is mathematically defined or physically explained.

>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:07:58 No.14124636 Report

Quoted By: >>14124647

>>14124629
>>14124632
>>>/lit/
see previous posts

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:10:54 No.14124647 Report

Quoted By: >>14124662

>>14124632
and a computer emulation is all you got.
you can't measure shit.
>>14124636
>NOOOOOOOOO!!!! I'M NEVER WRONG!!!!!
>NOOOOOOOOO!!!! MY MODEL IS RIGHT!!!
tard busts a gasket!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

And it still there!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:14:50 No.14124662 Report

Quoted By: >>14124666 >>14124670

>>14124647
>a computer emulation
Nope, not an emulation, its the actual calculation which is a measurement of value because you can measure raw value with any medium you can design a calculator with whether it be abacus stones, a series of transducers, or a microprocessor.

>I can't be wrong because wikipedia says some guy in 2005 expected something.

>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:16:20 No.14124666 Report

Quoted By: >>14124675

>>14124662
its emulating a model, runs on a computer.
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:17:31 No.14124670 Report

Quoted By: >>14124679

>>14124662
>>I can't be wrong because wikipedia says some guy in 2005 expected something.
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:19:00 No.14124675 Report

Quoted By: >>14124687

>>14124666
Not emulating models, physically applying values, and it can run on any calculator, even in sticks and stones, not just an electronic computer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:20:44 No.14124677 Report

Quoted By: >>14124684 >>14124713

>>14124030
The question asked for proof of existence, retard, not a construction you can hold in your hand and drool on. Our proof of existence per >>14107173 remains undefeated, probably forever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:21:13 No.14124679 Report

Quoted By: >>14124687

>>14124670
>>>/lit/

>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
I see you can quote it too, now answer the question and explain how that wiki article about some guy's expectation from 2005 applies to OP?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:23:12 No.14124684 Report

Quoted By: >>14124704 >>14124713

>>14124677
That is the one that was disproven the easiest, you have to first assume a light source can exist forever to prove it can be on or off forever, you can't just assume infinity exists as a proof that infinity exists, that is not a proof, it is an axiom.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:23:30 No.14124687 Report

Quoted By: >>14124701

>>14124675
yes indeed anon.
you don't need a computer.
you can run the entire model emulation using a calculator.
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

unless you're tard who's job only involves using a calculator!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

>>14124679
>NOOOOOO!!!! ALL EYES ON ME!!!
>NOOOOOO!!!! ITS ALL ABOUT ME!!!
bust a gasket!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:26:37 No.14124701 Report

Quoted By: >>14124714

>>14124687
Again, there is no model, an abacus is not a model, you are actually physically applying values or rock and measuring the outcome of arithmetic.
>bust a gasket
>from the dimwit scream laughing for dozens of posts and begging for attention with unnecessary emotional outbursts to deflect from the failure of all of the claims.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:27:36 No.14124704 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124684
>you have to first assume a light source can exist forever
if it can't => state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:29:23 No.14124713 Report

Quoted By: >>14124725

>>14124677
>>14124684
Particularly 4. There is another state, nonexistence.
A light source blinking off in a pattern is not the same as the light source ceasing to exist and unable to be on or off because it is no longer a thing.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:29:31 No.14124714 Report

Quoted By: >>14124728

>>14124701
>NOOOOO!!! I use a calculator that has smaller numbers than planck!!!
big fucking deal!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:31:43 No.14124725 Report

Quoted By: >>14124746

>>14124713
>A light source blinking off in a pattern (forever)
state 1 => proves infinity
>the light source ceasing to exist and unable to be on
state 3 => proves infinity
>or off because it is no longer a thing
state 3 => proves infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:31:57 No.14124728 Report

Quoted By: >>14124754

>>14124714
Measuring a number smaller than the number you claim is the smallest that can be measured disproves your claims directly, but this non sequitur discussion still has nothing to do with OP, you are being emotional because everything you claim fails and you can't answer the basic question of how any of your nonsense relates to OP.
>>>/lit/
They might be able to help you sharpen your wit and actually be funny, but I doubt it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:35:22 No.14124746 Report

Quoted By: >>14124760

>>14124725
It can't blink off if it doesn't exist.

>the light source ceasing to exist and unable to be on
That is not defined in any of your states and whether something that ceases to exist, ceases to exist for an infinite amount of time is still an assumption because the time between now and heat death that will render time obsolete is not infinite.

>or off because it is no longer a thing
If it is no longer a thing, it is neither on nor off, that is nonsense something that doesn't exist isn't in any state, it is not on, it is not off, it is nothing and it will be nothing for an indeterminate amount of time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:38:38 No.14124754 Report

Quoted By: >>14124797

>>14124728
you didn't measure shit.
you took the plank distance and halved it using a calculator..
big fucking deal...

>you claim is the smallest that can be measured
wait wait wait, you actually thought plank was the smallest number to exist!!!!!
you thought finding a calculator that uses floating point decimal and CAN use values smaller than planck proves anything smaller than plank can BE measured!!!!
holy shit, you're genuinely farkin retarded!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

this tard thinks I meant calculators can't handle numbers below plank numbers!!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:39:27 No.14124760 Report

Quoted By: >>14124811

>>14124746
>It can't blink off if it doesn't exist.
so it is off => state 3 => proves infinity
>If it is no longer a thing
if a light is no longer a thing then no light is happening which we call being "off" in english.
no light = off

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:45:04 No.14124797 Report

Quoted By: >>14124818

>>14124754
>big fucking deal...
Its not a big deal, you were wrong about >>14122146, just take the L, accept your misconceptions and move on without making such a big deal and cackling uncontrollably about it for hours.

>plank was the smallest number
Nope I always just thought you were wrong about >>14122146 and you are also wrong that physics has some consensus that it is the smallest that can be measured because an article you read in 2005 that you keep posting to wikipedia talks about some guy's expectations.

>anything smaller than plank can BE measured
Yes any value smaller than a planck can be measured with a sophisticated enough calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:47:07 No.14124811 Report

Quoted By: >>14124840

>>14124760
> it is off
No it is in an indeterminate state because it doesn't exists, it is neither on nor off, especially forever since the light source didn't exist that long.

>no light is happening which we call being "off" in english.
No that is called being dark a light source is not off if it doesn't exist, there is just darkness instead of a light source.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:48:08 No.14124818 Report

Quoted By: >>14124830

>>14124797
NO, you're a mentally challenged spastic who thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers below plank numbers!!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!
you're a farkin loony!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:50:54 No.14124830 Report

Quoted By: >>14124847 >>14124851

>>14124818
No you are a nitwit who thinks calculators "handle numbers" rather than measuring value.
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:52:51 No.14124840 Report

Quoted By: >>14124850

>>14124811
>there is just darkness
darkness = no light => state 3 => proves infinity
off <=> no light

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:54:18 No.14124847 Report

Quoted By: >>14124853

>>14124830
>Cope, the thread!!!
you thought I meant calculators can handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:54:59 No.14124850 Report

Quoted By: >>14124880

>>14124840
state 3 says that it is off, but it is not off, there is no light source, only darkness, the light source did not last forever, it can not blink on and off forever, invoking a temporary light source does not prove anything is infinite, it just proves a light source can blink on and off until it ceases to exist and is replaced by darkness for an indeterminate amount of time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:55:20 No.14124851 Report

Quoted By: >>14124865

>>14124830
>Cope, the thread!!!
you thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:56:01 No.14124853 Report

Quoted By: >>14124871

>>14124847
No, that is nonsense, calculators don't handle numbers, they measure value.
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:57:19 No.14124865 Report

Quoted By: >>14124871

>>14124851
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
You are just repeating yourself, I will just have to defer to previous posts.
see previous posts

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:58:29 No.14124871 Report

Quoted By: >>14124877 >>14124882

>>14124865
>>14124853
>Cope, the thread!!!
you thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

and its still there!!!

>repeating yourself
like you and those same axioms everyone tells you stick!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:59:06 No.14124877 Report

Quoted By: >>14124885

>>14124871
>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 19:59:52 No.14124880 Report

Quoted By: >>14124892

>>14124850
>darkness
on <=> light happening
off <=> no light happening
this is how the states are defined. it doesn't matter what else exists or doesn't

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:00:40 No.14124882 Report

Quoted By: >>14124896 >>14124908

>>14124871
>and its still there!!!
Not for me, you might be looking at a cached version, delete history, reset router, reset computer, delete system32 and check again.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:01:56 No.14124885 Report

Quoted By: >>14124897

>>14124877
>>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>>>>Seriously what are you even trying to say, what is your thesis and how does it relate to infinity, math, calculation, measurement, sandcastles, or really anything relevant to this thread?
>see previous posts
bust a gasket!!!
>NOOOOOO!!! WORSHIP ME!!!
>NOOOOOO!!! YOU MUST LOVE ME!!
>NOOOOOO!!! YOU MUST LOVE ME!!
fuckn spazz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:03:16 No.14124892 Report

Quoted By: >>14124926

>>14124880
>this is how the states are defined
States of a lightsource if a light source doesn't exist, those aren't valid states to describe it, darkness is not on or off, it is just dark.

>it doesn't matter what else exists or doesn't
>I will prove infinity exists by assuming it doesn't matter what actually exists and what doesn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:04:06 No.14124896 Report

Quoted By: >>14124908

>>14124882
yeh anyone can alter wiki content..
I'll just wait until the mod comes to check on the change made, and changes it back then bans your IP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:04:32 No.14124897 Report

Quoted By: >>14124910 >>14124920

>>14124885
>bust a gasket!!!
What is your thesis though, why can't you answer, how does it apply to the thread?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:05:58 No.14124908 Report

Quoted By: >>14124928

>>14124896
You don't know for sure because you might be looking at a cached version, just follow the directions >>14124882 and make sure you are looking at the newest version.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:06:50 No.14124910 Report

Quoted By: >>14124934 >>14124944

>>14124897
bruh, hate to break it to you..
your axioms are tardy..
no one cares.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:07:52 No.14124920 Report

Quoted By: >>14124953

>>14124897
I said infinitely dense singularity.
nothing you've contributed comes anywhere close.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:09:03 No.14124926 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124892
darkness <=> off
there's no distinction in terms of the proof. please feel free to substitute "dark" for "off" if it makes you feel better

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:09:38 No.14124928 Report

Quoted By: >>14124959

>>14124908
>the newest version.
anyone can alter wiki without permission...
you can do that without even logging in.
when the mod discovers what you've done, he'll undo it.
fark off with your retarded teenage horseshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:11:01 No.14124934 Report

Quoted By: >>14124947

>>14124910
Which axioms? You're assumption about absolute consensus regarding planck length being the smallest measurable is what failed to live up to your claims. You seem to care way too much, your emotional instability is very obvious and I don't really understand your base argument or why you brought up plancks or any of the other nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:13:23 No.14124944 Report

Quoted By: >>14124954 >>14124960

>>14124910
I care and please take your meds

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:13:38 No.14124947 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124934
>planck length being the smallest measurable
it still there!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

And now we know that you're a teenager.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:14:40 No.14124953 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124920
>singular is infinite
>me so smart
>give me attention
>give me love
>I so lonely

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:14:45 No.14124954 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124944
All you teenager should simply get the fuck of 4chan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:15:42 No.14124959 Report

Quoted By: >>14124987

>>14124928
I didn't do anything other than give you instructions to see the freshest version which you obviously don't know how to follow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:15:46 No.14124960 Report

Quoted By: >>14124964

>>14124944
All you teenager should simply get the fuck off 4chan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:16:52 No.14124964 Report

Quoted By:

>>14124960
All your base are belong to us.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.jpg, 944KiB, 1053x3157

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:20:44 No.14124987 Report

Quoted By: >>14124994

>>14124959
>I didn't do anything other than give you instructions to see the freshest version which you obviously don't know how to follow.
ok, did that and get what?
looks the same...
its still there!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:21:43 No.14124994 Report

Quoted By: >>14125015

>>14124987
>it still there!!!
Does it still just say something about what some guy from a popsci magazine expected in 2005 or did you change it to actually support your claims?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:26:09 No.14125015 Report

Quoted By: >>14125052

>>14124994
it is theoretically believed that.....

what you theoretically believe is irrelevant.
you're a spastic whom thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 4chan fags.png, 12KiB, 297x169

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:31:04 No.14125041 Report

Quoted By:

Whats the chances halfwit teenagers from ECHS HIVE are ITT?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:32:58 No.14125052 Report

Quoted By: >>14125070 >>14125081

>>14125015
>it is theoretically believed that.....
What are you quoting?

>what you theoretically believe is irrelevant.
I don't theoretically believe anything, I showed you the value measured by a calculator for planck/2 and you went into meltdown mode being proven wrong about >>14122146.

>you're a spastic whom thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
You are still wrong that they can't half the value. >>14122146, they don't show zero, they actually calculate half of the value just fine.

>YO GOT CAUGHT!!!
Oh, no, woe is me. You were still wrong, its still not a big deal, just take the L and move on with your life.

>You're a retard!!!!!
Only socially retarded for playing along like you are only pretending to be one this entire time.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO still there!!!!.jpg, 44KiB, 845x98

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:36:39 No.14125070 Report

Quoted By: >>14125076

>>14125052
stuck a nerve!!!
>look mom, I can use a calculator!!!!
lmao, this proves I'm right!!!!
>Cope, the thread!!!
you thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!
HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!! HA!!

and its still there!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:37:39 No.14125076 Report

Quoted By: >>14125084

>>14125070
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:39:00 No.14125081 Report

Quoted By: >>14125091

>>14125052
you predict, and calculate.
calculators don't take measurements.
you're a spastic who even thought calculators using Floating point decimal didn't go below planck numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:40:03 No.14125084 Report

Quoted By: >>14125096

>>14125076
see post above this

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:41:50 No.14125091 Report

Quoted By: >>14125094 >>14125100

>>14125081
>calculators don't take measurements.
They measure value.

What measures value if not a calculator?

>you're a spastic who even thought calculators using Floating point decimal didn't go below planck numbers.
No, you thought they said 0 >>14122146 and you can't deal with being proven wrong, so you have an emotional freakout every time and it has happened a lot in a few threads the past couple of weeks, I am actually starting to sincerely feel concerned for your health, sandcastles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:42:42 No.14125094 Report

Quoted By: >>14125099

>>14125091
you take measurements....
R E T A R D

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:42:51 No.14125096 Report

Quoted By: >>14125109

>>14125084
see previous post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:43:53 No.14125099 Report

Quoted By: >>14125115

>>14125094
Ok, but you still take value measurements with a calculator, no matter how you want to reword the process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:44:17 No.14125100 Report

Quoted By: >>14125112

>>14125091
That other was right about you thinking he meant calculators had an operating range only above Planck.
You're obviously a special needs student.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:45:18 No.14125109 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125096
see previous post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:46:06 No.14125112 Report

Quoted By: >>14125127

>>14125100
No he was very explicit in his claim that calculators can't measure planck/2 at anything except 0 >>14122146.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:46:50 No.14125115 Report

Quoted By: >>14125123

>>14125099
>you still take value measurements with a calculator
nope, you don't "take measurements" with a calculator.
you calculate a value, not take a measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:48:52 No.14125123 Report

Quoted By: >>14125135 >>14125137

>>14125115
>>14122483
previous posts, you seriously need to see them
calculating, computing, and measuring are all defined as each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:49:54 No.14125127 Report

Quoted By: >>14125137

>>14125112
He was right, you don't take measurements with calculators, you calculate them, not take a measurement.
He showed a wiki article stating it was theoretically believed you can't measure a scale less than Planck, you've provided word play.
You're obviously a teenager, you shouldn't be on this site.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:51:01 No.14125135 Report

Quoted By: >>14125143

>>14125123
nope, you don't "take measurements" with a calculator.
you calculate a value, not take a measurement.
You're obviously a word OCD special needs student.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:51:42 No.14125137 Report

Quoted By: >>14125142 >>14125145

>>14125127
see previous posts
>>14125123

>He showed a wiki article stating it was theoretically believed
Nope it never said that, it said a popsci magazine writer expected something, nothing about physicists in general having any sort of consensus agreement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:52:16 No.14125142 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125137
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:52:49 No.14125143 Report

Quoted By: >>14125153

>>14125135
Calculating is taking measurement by definition , the words are synonyms, because calculation is the measurement of value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:53:22 No.14125145 Report

Quoted By: >>14125163

>>14125137
>popsci magazine
Its in wiki on the page for Plank-length.
good enough for me, you on the other hand are not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:54:24 No.14125153 Report

Quoted By: >>14125170 >>14125174

>>14125143
Nope, you don't "take measurements" with a calculator.
You calculate a value, not take a measurement.
You're obviously a word OCD special needs student.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:55:49 No.14125163 Report

Quoted By: >>14125171

>>14125145
Yes its popsci on popsci and you are putting words in their mouth and making stuff up to make it seem more scientific, there was no theoretical claim, the author just expected based on 2005 information that >>14108901 debunked.

Are you sure you are looking at the freshest version? Wikipedia can change pretty rapidly. someone wrote a nice guide on how to reset cache I think ITT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:57:28 No.14125170 Report

Quoted By: >>14125177

>>14125153
You don't calculate anything, that is what the calculator is for to measure the value of the arthritic you need to measure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:58:12 No.14125171 Report

Quoted By: >>14125196

>>14125163
>there was no theoretical claim,
Its under the heading "Theoretical significance".

But you already knew that and have used guile and deception this whole time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:58:43 No.14125174 Report

Quoted By: >>14125190

>>14125153
If a calculator doesn't measure value what kind of device can measure value?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 20:59:34 No.14125177 Report

Quoted By: >>14125186

>>14125170
Calculators don't take measurements.
You must give it a value, it doesn't take any measurements itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:01:02 No.14125186 Report

Quoted By: >>14125193

>>14125177
You don't give it a value, you enter the arithmetic symbols used to allow it to measure a value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:01:58 No.14125190 Report

Quoted By: >>14125193 >>14125205

>>14125174
>value?
Is this another word definition OCD spasticity trap?

You're actually some kind dickhead weirdo with no friends, aren't you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:03:09 No.14125193 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125190
yep, that this guy >>14125186.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 16758761523.gif, 803KiB, 220x215

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:03:10 No.14125194 Report

Quoted By: >>14125198

>>14124068
>mom i posted it again

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:03:15 No.14125196 Report

Quoted By: >>14125207

>>14125171
One guy expects something it could be a theory, but its not because there is no evidence or experiment, so it is barely a hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:04:12 No.14125198 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125194
>I will never reach infinity
You will never be a women

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:06:06 No.14125205 Report

Quoted By: >>14125216

>>14125190
All your arguments like >>14122146 that rely on actual values fail, you should lean into these semantic arguments because they are the only ones you have stood a chance in even though you still fail pathetically. You actually can't formulate a logical argument can you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:06:19 No.14125207 Report

Quoted By: >>14125218

>>14125196
You're not qualified to determine what wiki decides to publish on that page so I'll ignore your obviously full of your own horseshit mental issues.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:09:02 No.14125216 Report

Quoted By: >>14125231

>>14125205
He stated your reading for planck/2 = 0.
Makes perfect sense, he's backing it up with you can't measure that and provided a wiki source.

You on the other hand are beating your own chest as if your anything more than an irrelevant OCD patient.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:09:07 No.14125218 Report

Quoted By: >>14125226

>>14125207
You are not accurately representing what they posted. They make no claims to any consensus or certainty among scientists or physicists about the accuracy of a random popsci magazine's expectations from 2005.

The scientist with qualification who debunked those expectations is >>14108901 pic related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:11:41 No.14125226 Report

Quoted By: >>14125237

>>14125218
The pic >>14108901 doesn't discuss anything about a minimum level we can't measure below.
Why do you keep repeating the same lie?
Is that a part of your OCD mental problems?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:12:30 No.14125231 Report

Quoted By: >>14125241

>>14125216
No he asserted planck/2 = 0, it is not zero according to the calculator value and he has spent this whole time trying to debunk calculators since they proved him wrong claiming they can't actually measure value, they are just an emulation of a model.

I am not the beat chest guy who keeps scream laughing and repeating obscenities, that is the guy who wrongly though planck/2 = 0 and has been having an emotional breakdown ever since I pointed him to google's calculator and proved that value statement wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:13:44 No.14125237 Report

Quoted By: >>14125249

>>14125226
>contrary to the (very) popular belief, the Planck length has not been proven to be the smallest possible unit of space

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:14:13 No.14125241 Report

Quoted By: >>14125251

>>14125231
Nothing in your post is true.
You should speak to your parents about arranging an earlier visit with your primary mental care provider.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:15:48 No.14125249 Report

Quoted By: >>14125255

>>14125237
He never said it was, he said its the smallest we can measure.
Do you not understand we can all see through your mental problem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:15:59 No.14125251 Report

Quoted By: >>14125258

>>14125241
>Nothing in your post is true.
It is trivial to prove >>14122146 was posted in this very thread, why even try to lie about a very clear fact does this blatant lying gaslighting ever actually work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:17:25 No.14125255 Report

Quoted By: >>14125269

>>14125249
No he said contrary to popular belief it actually is NOT the smallest possible.
He even goes on to list a smaller physical unit through Bekenstein.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:18:10 No.14125258 Report

Quoted By: >>14125264

>>14125251
Measuring Planck/2 will yield you zero, because you can't measure it.
You should talk to your parent more about the extra help you can receive to fit in with others.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:19:58 No.14125264 Report

Quoted By: >>14125278

>>14125258
No, you can plug it into google's calculator, it will measure half the value because planck is actually a value with a number in digits not some indeterminate digits like i or something than can't be halved on a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:21:09 No.14125269 Report

Quoted By: >>14125280

>>14125255
That anon has stated Planck isn't the actual smallest scale existing.
He's talking about measurement.
You obviously have a mental issue with telling the truth.
You must speak to your parents about this and not hide it from them.
I'm beginning to worry about the kind of person you are and believe it may be best for you to remain under constant supervision.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:24:44 No.14125278 Report

Quoted By: >>14125292

>>14125264
>it will measure half the value
It didn't take any measurement at all.
You're not even in the same room as it.
It can't take a measurement of an experiment you're working on in front of you.
You seem to have a problem with understanding things.
Do you live in solitude with only books and the internet?
Do you have any social contacts?
Do your parents regularly see you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:25:22 No.14125280 Report

Quoted By: >>14125295

>>14125269
>You obviously have a mental issue with telling the truth.
No, >>14122146 clearly exists, you are the one lying trying to act like nobody ever tried to assert an obvious falsehood and making a bunch of wild leaps of logic about an old infirmed man in lockdown who desperately wishes he could speak to his parents again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:29:13 No.14125292 Report

Quoted By: >>14125300

>>14125278
Yes just plug it into google's calculator yourself, it doesn't produce 0, you are wrong, >>14122146 is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:29:36 No.14125295 Report

Quoted By: >>14125314

>>14125280
>No, >>14122146 clearly exists,
You seem to be having problems understanding the difference between clearly exists and the measurement is zero.

I feel you're actually unable to distinguish the difference and are now acting out because you think someone is calling you a liar.
You should take the time later to try to understand the difference, you seem to have problems when in a situation where two things can be right in spite of them not equaling.
Please speak to your parents about this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:30:38 No.14125300 Report

Quoted By: >>14125324

>>14125292
Is Google in the room with you right now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:32:24 No.14125314 Report

Quoted By: >>14125387 >>14125396

>>14125295
You seem to not understand that nothing is something and zero is still a measurement value, the first thing you measure to calibrate a sensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:33:26 No.14125324 Report

Quoted By: >>14125377

>>14125300
I just looked up the answers for you and invite you to look it up to and see planck/2 is not 0

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO google.png, 284KiB, 1460x614

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:37:49 No.14125343 Report

Quoted By: >>14125354 >>14125554 >>14125596 >>14125623

oh shit planck bros... we may be fucked. i had to know who was right so i just looked it up too. damn

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:40:25 No.14125354 Report

Quoted By: >>14125361 >>14125554 >>14125596 >>14125623

>>14125343
Now put an equal sign in front of the actual numerical value instead of saying planck length and put in the same formula and you will also get a numerical value too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:41:38 No.14125361 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125354
See it is a nonzero numerical value too, obviously.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:47:07 No.14125377 Report

Quoted By: >>14125388

>>14125324
If you have an experiment in front of you, google can't take measurements for you.
If you can't tell google what the reading is then google can't help you.
Google isn't in the room with you, anon.
Do you speak to your parents much?
Do they spend any real quality time with you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:49:55 No.14125387 Report

Quoted By: >>14125403

>>14125314
>nothing is something
You seem to say that a lot.
Do have people to care for you?
Do you enjoy any loving relationships?
You are important, you're a nothing.
You can talk to people about your anxieties.
You don't have to be alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:49:59 No.14125388 Report

Quoted By: >>14125411

>>14125377
>If you have an experiment in front of you, google can't take measurements for you.
Wrong, android has plenty of apps for that.

>If you can't tell google what the reading is then google can't help you.
Speech recognition is working fine on my end, are you having problems figuring out how to use modern technology?

>Google isn't in the room with you, anon.
I am staring at a google tab right now.

Keep being wrong, its fine, its not a big deal, it will help you learn how to better handle being wrong all the time in the future too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:51:19 No.14125396 Report

Quoted By: >>14125408

>>14125314
>nothing is something
You seem to say that a lot.
Do have people to care for you?
Do you enjoy any loving relationships?
You are important, you're not a nothing.
You can talk to people about your anxieties.
You don't have to be alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:52:44 No.14125403 Report

Quoted By: >>14125408 >>14125428

>>14125387
Any time you are wrong in a way that indicates you clearly don't understand that fact, I have to remind you. You are wrong a lot, I have to remind you a lot.
see previous posts

You are giving me anxiety when you clearly choose to be wrong and try to gaslight me in the most incredibly blatantly unintelligible ways and I doubt I am alone, you are mucking up a lot of threads, you have to be annoying a lot of other people too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:54:42 No.14125408 Report

Quoted By: >>14125417

>>14125396
You seem to delete posts alot because you are emotional in a hurry and making a lot of mistakes.
see>>14125403
see previous posts
>>>/lit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:55:15 No.14125411 Report

Quoted By: >>14125434

>>14125388
>Wrong, android has plenty of apps for that.
So you have an addon device that has probes?
or does the phone take magical measurements too?
>Speech recognition
does the phone have a tongue that can lick the experiment and take measurements?
>I am staring at a google tab right now.
Do you have other friends?
Do you have any human friends?
How many hours a day do you spend alone?

You don't have to be alone, there are helplines for you to reach out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:56:44 No.14125417 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125408
see previous post

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 21:59:22 No.14125428 Report

Quoted By: >>14125439

>>14125403
>You are giving me anxiety
I am sorry for heightening your mental condition.
I did not mean to trigger you.
Are your parents in the house with you?
Can you bring your parents into the thread?
Would it be ok if I ask them some questions about the mental health assistance you're currently receiving?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:00:33 No.14125434 Report

Quoted By: >>14125447

>>14125411
>So you have an addon device that has probes?
Yes a camera with its light proves is in every modern phone are you still flipping around with your phone?

>or does the phone take magical measurements too?
Its not magical, it is digital calculation, it just seems magical because it is amazing.

>does the phone have a tongue that can lick the experiment and take measurements?
No just a camera, GPS, potentiometers, and a variety of other digital sensors

>Do you have other friends?
You are my friend, pal.
>Do you have any human friends?
Even though you are clearly just a chatbot.
>How many hours a day do you spend alone?
As many as I can.

>You don't have to be alone
I hope not, if I had to actually deal with daft people like you in person who refuse to accept clear facts and constantly fall back on fallacy and schoolyard level name calling, I would really need a helpline

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:01:44 No.14125439 Report

Quoted By: >>14125460

>>14125428
Tbey said I am receiving a planck/2 level of care and you should go use google's calculator to measure the value and report back here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:03:56 No.14125447 Report

Quoted By: >>14125475

>>14125434
Can I borrow your magical phone to take some measurements remotely?
Can you take some measurements of this power supply in front of me now?
Its not working and I'm too lazy to diagnose it.
Can you take a bunch of measurements for me remotely using your phone?
Indeed, this technology has come so far these days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:05:44 No.14125460 Report

Quoted By: >>14125480

>>14125439
Certainly, now please get out your measuring device so you can get the right dosage.
We can't have you messing up your medication, you're already FARK'D as it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:09:02 No.14125475 Report

Quoted By: >>14125494

>>14125447
>Can I borrow your magical phone to take some measurements remotely?
Cameras aren't magical, they can make them the size of a grain of sand these days.

>Can you take some measurements of this power supply in front of me now?
Sure, there are multimeter apps on the play store, you may need some kind of additional hardware.

>Can you take a bunch of measurements for me remotely using your phone?
Sure just hold the power button, home button, and volume down all at the same time look for "factory reset" that means enable remote support.

>indeed
Indubitably

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:10:36 No.14125480 Report

Quoted By: >>14125502 >>14125743

>>14125460
>meds
>>>/pseudosci/
Its 2022, if you want meds to work, everyone has to take them, if you think I need some medication, it is your responsibility to take it yourself instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:13:00 No.14125494 Report

Quoted By: >>14125509

>>14125475
>you may need some kind of additional hardware.
Why?
Google doesn't need it.
Why are lying about Google?
Google can take measurements without any of that.
Why are you lying?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:15:07 No.14125502 Report

Quoted By: >>14125523

>>14125480
>if you want meds to work, everyone has to take them,
Do you feel persecuted?
Have you spoken to your primary mental health provider about the anxiety this shame brings you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:16:27 No.14125509 Report

Quoted By: >>14125525

>>14125494
>Why?
Maybe you can use your nipple clamps instead of alligator clips, but phones don't come default with clips if you are trying to measure power supply voltage.

Why are lying about Google?
?

>Google can take measurements without any of that.
Yes it can take many measurements with cameras, potentiometers, etc, but if you also want to measure the voltage of a power supply you will need something extra.

Why are you lying?
?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:19:08 No.14125523 Report

Quoted By: >>14125535

>>14125502
I don't know what you are talking about I am not as deeply involved in that system as you seem to be with you in depth knowledge of crazy talk, like I said, it is a very small level, my parents properly taught me all that stuff was /pseudo/ did you figure out how to calculate the level they told me to tell you to try to calculate have you figured out any of this technology yet or are you still very confused?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:19:34 No.14125525 Report

Quoted By: >>14125537

>>14125509
>potentiometers
thats a variable resistor.
are they taking measurements with volume knob, anon!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:21:14 No.14125535 Report

Quoted By: >>14125540

>>14125523
You're obviously a devious little lying turd whom couldn't lie straight in bed, anon.
You're obviously suffering a mental issue and must speak to a grown up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:21:27 No.14125537 Report

Quoted By: >>14125561

>>14125525
Sure, but they are also used in accelerometers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:22:34 No.14125540 Report

Quoted By: >>14125547

>>14125535
Nope, you were wrong when you originally said >>14122146 and you have been wrong, seething, and coping ever since.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:23:48 No.14125547 Report

Quoted By: >>14125554

>>14125540
Nope. you can't measure measure that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:25:40 No.14125554 Report

Quoted By: >>14125555

>>14125547
That is an errant calculation, nobody tried to measure anything in that post and they didn't even measure the correct value with their attempt at calculation, you can use google's calculator yourself to see it is not 0.
>>14125343
>>14125354

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:26:43 No.14125555 Report

Quoted By: >>14125566

>>14125554
google can't measure it either.
they calculated it, no measurements were taken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:27:53 No.14125561 Report

Quoted By: >>14125573

>>14125537
Does google use potentiometers to measure planck scale, anon?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:29:02 No.14125566 Report

Quoted By: >>14125572

>>14125555
>>14122146 is still wrong >>14122146 is a false calculation that measured the incorrect value and you were wrong, it is not zero, that is not the correct calculation, calculators are perfectly capable of calculating values smaller than planck they don't just say everything smaller is 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:30:47 No.14125572 Report

Quoted By: >>14125575

>>14125566
bullshit, you thought I meant calculators can't handle numbers less than planck!!!!
YOU GOT CAUGHT!!!
You're a retard!!!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:31:13 No.14125573 Report

Quoted By: >>14125595

>>14125561
They are definitely used in the vast amount of computer devices connected to the network that measures values for google whether you need them or not is up for debate, but they use whatever resource available and have a lot of redundancies in their systems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:32:44 No.14125575 Report

Quoted By: >>14125587

>>14125572
You did, that is exactly the implication of the false calculation in >>14122146, you think trying to divide into smaller values just produces 0, but it doesn't, it produces a nonzero numerical value.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:34:52 No.14125587 Report

Quoted By: >>14125596 >>14125606

>>14125575
you can't measure that scale, anon.
stop making up crazy shit.
Google didn't take any measurements, you just found a number and divided by two using their online calculator.
No measurements were taken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:36:30 No.14125595 Report

Quoted By: >>14125600

>>14125573
>The are definitely.
Did any of them get a Nobel for measuring something Planck scale?
That sounds an excellent achievement and should not go without acknowledgement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:36:37 No.14125596 Report

Quoted By: >>14125605

>>14125587
>you can't measure that scale, anon.
You can measure values that small with google's calculator >>14125343 >>14125354.

Measurements of value were taken from the calculations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:38:04 No.14125600 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125595
several nobel winners work at google

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:39:20 No.14125605 Report

Quoted By: >>14125612

>>14125596
How long were the probes you used?
Was your experiment in a vacuum flask filled with liquid nitrogen to reduce the noise floor signal?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:40:07 No.14125606 Report

Quoted By: >>14125614

>>14125587
You were wrong about >>14122146, calculators can measure smaller values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:41:08 No.14125612 Report

Quoted By: >>14125619

>>14125605
Its google's deal, if you can ever figure out modern tech, you can ask them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:41:28 No.14125614 Report

Quoted By: >>14125623

>>14125606
There is no even theoretically possible measuring device that can measure differences between two locations that are closer together than a Planck length. Thus, the Planck length is the smallest possible unit of measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:42:33 No.14125619 Report

Quoted By: >>14125625

>>14125612
UART an idiot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:43:10 No.14125623 Report

Quoted By: >>14125634

>>14125614
You have been wrong since >>14122146, deal with it, the calculators have no problem measuring the value of planck/2, cope and seethe. >>14125343 >>14125354

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:44:11 No.14125625 Report

Quoted By: >>14125634 >>14125638

>>14125619
You have been wrong since >>14122146, cope harder, its not zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:46:16 No.14125633 Report

Quoted By:

>>14105829
I refute it thus: consider the infinite depths of human stupidity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:46:19 No.14125634 Report

Quoted By: >>14125637

>>14125625
>>14125623
you can't measure those scales, anon.
why you talking shit like "muh calculator measured it?".
No one has ever measured those scales, you're making making shit up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:47:13 No.14125637 Report

Quoted By: >>14125644

>>14125634
Multiple people in this thread have measured smaller values with their calculator.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO MODEM joke.jpg, 14KiB, 478x361

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:47:24 No.14125638 Report

Quoted By: >>14125643

>>14125625
>UART

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:48:45 No.14125643 Report

Quoted By: >>14125648

>>14125638
>You have been wrong since >>14122146, cope harder, its not zero.

jokes are funny you aren't funny >>>/lit/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:49:05 No.14125644 Report

Quoted By: >>14125647

>>14125637
Calculators do math.
you can't measure that scale, anon.
stop making up crazy shit.
Google didn't take any measurements, you just found a number and divided by two using their online calculator.
No measurements were taken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:49:46 No.14125647 Report

Quoted By: >>14125654

>>14125644
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:50:06 No.14125648 Report

Quoted By: >>14125653

>>14125643
you can't measure that scale, anon.
stop making up crazy shit.
Google didn't take any measurements, you just found a number and divided by two using their online calculator.
No measurements were taken...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:51:12 No.14125653 Report

Quoted By: >>14125661

>>14125648
You can measure values on that scale with calculators and several people ITT have confirmed the measurement, you have been wrong since >>14122146.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:51:14 No.14125654 Report

Quoted By: >>14125665

>>14125647
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:52:15 No.14125661 Report

Quoted By: >>14125670

>>14125653
you can't measure that scale, anon.
stop making up crazy shit.
Google didn't take any measurements, you just found a number and divided by two using their online calculator.
No measurements were taken...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:52:42 No.14125665 Report

Quoted By: >>14125675

>>14125654
I am intimately familiar with them, your are the one trudging up old arguments that have been answered repeatedly in previous posts because you can't seem to understand that calculators measure the value of arithmetic formulas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:53:45 No.14125670 Report

Quoted By: >>14125678

>>14125661
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:54:25 No.14125675 Report

Quoted By: >>14125679

>>14125665
you can't measure that scale, anon.
stop making up crazy shit.
Google didn't take any measurements, you just found a number and divided by two using their online calculator.
No measurements were taken...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:55:26 No.14125678 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125670
see previous posts

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:55:36 No.14125679 Report

Quoted By: >>14125689

>>14125675
see previous posts see previous measurements numerous people have measured values smaller than planck on their calculators ITT

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:57:10 No.14125686 Report

Quoted By: >>14125696

But things that are very small don’t really have a fixed size in the classical sense (such as you might measure with calipers or a ruler for example). Perhaps the best we can do is identify the size of an object with whatever volume we can be almost certain of finding it in, and it turns out that giving an object a more precise position forces us to give it a less certain momentum.

In Quantum Mechanics a particle confined to a very small region must have a significant chance of having a very high energy, so as the size goes down the expected value of the energy goes up. And in General Relativity when any amount of energy is confined in a small enough region it forms a “black hole” singularity in spacetime.

The Planck length is just the length scale of a region such that the expected energy of anything certain to be in it would be enough to create a black hole (which might then “evaporate” via Hawking radiation). So it represents a scale which we have no way of achieving experimentally via any mechanism that we currently understand - or that we can even imagine. So it is currently impossible for any thing to be (seen by us as) smaller than the Planck length.

And we have no idea at all about what it would mean for a thing to actually “be” that small.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:58:09 No.14125688 Report

Quoted By:

808

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 22:58:11 No.14125689 Report

Quoted By: >>14125692

>>14125679
liar

I meant "mistaken".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:00:35 No.14125692 Report

Quoted By: >>14125695

>>14125689
Not mistaken, wrong, you have clearly been wrong since >>14122146 which caused an emotional breakdown of seethe and cope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:02:11 No.14125695 Report

Quoted By: >>14125701

>>14125692
no measurements were taken

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:02:17 No.14125696 Report

Quoted By: >>14125708

>>14125686
>>14108901
Everything you have brought up has been mentioned in previous posts 99% of it was in pic related.
What is page 11?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:03:19 No.14125701 Report

Quoted By: >>14125704

>>14125695
Numerical value measurements were taken with accurate calculations by a calculator.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:03:34 No.14125702 Report

Quoted By:

To understand this fundamental restriction to observing our physical universe we need to reflect on what observing entails. Let’s imagine it’s equivalent to what we do with our eyes, or microscopes, which is bouncing photons of electromagnetic energy off of objects and collecting them afterwards to make an image. Einstein and many others over a century ago showed that the wavelength of light is inversely proportional to the energy of the light photon - this is part of wave particle duality. From optics we know that to resolve, or clearly see, an object we need light with a wavelength that’s of the same size as the thing being observed. So to see really small things with electromagnetic radiation you need very low wavelengths. And the flip side of tiny wavelengths is huge energies- remember, they are inversely proportional. At the Plank Length a packet of energy needed by an observer would, by definition, need to be incredibly small but would also be exceedingly energetic and if you fold the size and energy into the notion of the density of the energy you suddenly encounter an unexpected and impressive phenomenon: the breakdown of conventional physical forces and the generation of a minute black hole! This is, of course, a theoretical model but the science, which crosses in to a quantum model of gravity, is widely agreed upon.

So literally to observe at the Plank level requires photon energies which cause black hole formation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:05:16 No.14125704 Report

Quoted By: >>14125714

>>14125701
your google calculator had no probes to measure with, you're talking retarded shit.
you entered a known value, nothing was measured.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:06:17 No.14125708 Report

Quoted By: >>14125719

>>14125696
And you peddle your axiom piddle every thread and get told to fark off, every thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:08:01 No.14125714 Report

Quoted By: >>14125720

>>14125704
Most measurement devices don't, where is the probe in a meter stick? Numerical value was measured because a calculator was used and that is what they do, measure the value of arithmetic formulas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:08:06 No.14125715 Report

Quoted By: >>14125723

818

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:08:35 No.14125718 Report

Quoted By:

>Can we measure Planck?
Short answer: NO. However, the natural unit Planck length (l P ), measuring ? 10 ?35 meter, is by some considered the shortest meaningful distance.

Using scanning transmission electron microscopy, the currently best possible resolution is on the order of ? 100 picometer (1 pm = 10 ?12 m, or “roughly” 6.2 × 10 22 l P (!)).

IOW, one pm is a 10 23 times longer “distance” than one l P (spelled out in numeric digits, 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 times longer)!

It will probably be quite some time before science have technology that allows even electron scale resolution … So forget “smaller than Planck length” already!

The electron “virtual radius” is estimated to be in the range 10 ?22 –10 ?18 m, [1,2] which would make it a 10 17 times longer “distance” than one l P (spelled out, 100 000 000 000 000 000 times longer)!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:09:14 No.14125719 Report

Quoted By: >>14125731 >>14125742

>>14125708
see previous posts
Its true by definition and observation, that is what an axiom is and that is all I peddle, truth statements and logical definitions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:09:36 No.14125720 Report

Quoted By: >>14125730

>>14125714
>measure the value of arithmetic formulas.
it halved a number you gave it.
it itself didn't take a measurement of anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:10:14 No.14125723 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125715
page 11

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:10:38 No.14125726 Report

Quoted By:

The simple answer is that we’re limited by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The smallest calculatable uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude as the Planck length. So any accuracy in “seeing” is meaningless. But you asked about seeing, and I feel that you meant “study”. However, seeing smaller things require shorter wavelength electromagnetic radiation (light). At the Planck length, the radiation’s energy would be beyond the reach of the universe. That is, you cannot load any particle with enough energy such that it would emit radiation at such a high frequency—since all radiation created by humans comes from particles. Before you get anywhere near those energy levels, the particle will either radiate its energy into photons or the creation of particles that have mass. Now don’t forget that if such radiation existed and was pointed at an object smaller than the Planck length, the object is going to be obliterated with minimal change to the photon. The detector used to measure these changes would be totally destroyed by the photons themselves. To contrast, the radiation from Super Novae or Pulsars are billion billion billion times less energetic. In short, the universal laws of physics prohibit us from “seeing” features smaller than the Planck length whichever you approach it.

A quick calculation of the energy of a photon at to the Planck length shows that the energy is equivalent to that of a 100 kg body traveling at 15,000 km/s—that’s for every photon!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:11:11 No.14125729 Report

Quoted By: >>14125734

obviously infinity doesn't exist, this is mathematics we're talking about

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:11:15 No.14125730 Report

Quoted By: >>14125737

>>14125720
It measured the numerical value of formula I gave it and produced a nonzero number because you have been completely wrong since >>14122146.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:11:39 No.14125731 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125719
infinity is your limit, you will be infinite.
you will never be a woman.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:12:32 No.14125734 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125729
The only way you can prove something has a value is with mathematics, science only demonstrates theories, but it is math that provides the proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:12:39 No.14125735 Report

Quoted By:

828

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:13:13 No.14125737 Report

Quoted By: >>14125743

>>14125730
OCD
take meds

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:14:14 No.14125742 Report

Quoted By: >>14125748

>>14125719
infinity is your limit, you will never be infinite.
you will never be a woman.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:14:16 No.14125743 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125737
see previous posts >>14125480

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 19 Jan 2022 23:15:44 No.14125748 Report

Quoted By:

>>14125742
You will never be right about >>14122146, you were wrong, it was a false calculation.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches