|
Carthag Tuek posted:Geh in die Knie Wow, I haven't thought about Deutsch-Amerikanische Freundschaft in a while
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Philippe posted:Wow, I haven't thought about Deutsch-Amerikanische Freundschaft in a while very underrated imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 10:41
|
|
|
den Mussolini muss man umgedreht tanzen
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
Just had a realisation-I-should've-had-while-high-at-3am-but-instead-had-at-4pm-while-getting-ready-for-work: it's not possible to see 100% of a 3D object at the same time. With a mirror, you can see 50% of the object and the reflection of 50%, or whatever, but that's not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 07:22
|
|
|
You can if you have a camera behind it
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 07:32
|
|
|
You're still not seeing the whole thing, though. You're seeing part of the thing, and an image of the other part.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
Just use your third eye to 4th dimensional view. Everyone can do it, except literally that one person on earth lol they suck.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 08:04
|
|
|
Lady Disdain posted:You're still not seeing the whole thing, though. You're seeing part of the thing, and an image of the other part. Isn’t an image all you’re seeing of it anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 10:26
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Isn’t an image all you’re seeing of it anyway? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 10:36
|
|
|
A cube made of glass 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
ce n'est pas un chien qui fume la pipe
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
christmas boots posted:Isn’t an image all you’re seeing of it anyway? Please don't drown my existential crisis in another, more scientific existential crisis.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
Lady Disdain posted:Just had a realisation-I-should've-had-while-high-at-3am-but-instead-had-at-4pm-while-getting-ready-for-work: You can't see 100% of a 2D object at the same time, either.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:31
|
|
|
We can't even see objects
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
Could God make a 3D Megadoodoo so big that he could not see all of it at once?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
3D Megadoodoo posted:You can't see 100% of a 2D object at the same time, either. flatlander spotted
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
3D Megadoodoo posted:You can't see 100% of a 2D object at the same time, either. Do surfaces without thickness have sides? Or is it because you cannot see any 2D object, because they cannot exist?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Phosphine posted:Do surfaces without thickness have sides? Or is it because you cannot see any 2D object, because they cannot exist? A truly 2D object would not have the mass to emit or reflect photons and hence could not be seen at all.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Phosphine posted:Do surfaces without thickness have sides? Sides? No. Sides? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
In order to even be able to see 50% of an opaque object the distance you need to be away from it is infinity..................
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
Your eyes only see 2 dimensions and make a guess at what the third is. That's why you get fooled by optical illusions.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
Does that mean my eyes are made in the Build engine?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:A truly 2D object would not have the mass to emit or reflect photons and hence could not be seen at all. I don't think this really makes sense. 3D objects, as we know them, are clouds of vaguely associated 0-dimensional particles. I don't see why constraining those particles to a plane would particularly stop them from emitting or reflecting light.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:I don't think this really makes sense. 3D objects, as we know them, are clouds of vaguely associated 0-dimensional particles. I don't see why constraining those particles to a plane would particularly stop them from emitting or reflecting light. That’s not a two-dimensional object. It has a third dimension on the order of one angstrom.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s not a two-dimensional object. It has a third dimension on the order of one angstrom. No it doesn't??? Fundamental particles, as far as we know, are dimensionless, and definitely smaller than one angstrom. Atoms are on the order of one angstrom wide, but nothing akin to an atom as we know it can exist in a hypothetical 2D object.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
Someone posts some stoner thought and suddenly everyone's a scientist or philosopher
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:No it doesn't??? Fundamental particles, as far as we know, are dimensionless, and definitely smaller than one angstrom. Atoms are on the order of one angstrom wide, but nothing akin to an atom as we know it can exist in a hypothetical 2D object.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Objects are the sum of interactions of particles which always cast to 3d because of various foibles of wave particle duality. Especially when we say "see." EMR is 3d which means the absolute best we could ever "see" is 2d cast to 3d. Well, you're absolutely correct that a two-dimensional assemblage of particles would bear little resemblance to what we normally think of as an "object." So what I'm imagining, here, is a potential field affecting this "object" that's uniform in two dimensions, and in the third dimension is basically an inverse Dirac delta function, infinity everywhere except one coordinate value where it is zero. This perfectly constrains the particles to the 2d plane at that coordinate, in the same way that a particle is constrained in the classic "infinite square well" that everyone learns to solve in their Babby's First QM course. And then you have some ordinary particles (electrons, quarks, the usual stuff that makes up what we think of as "ordinary matter") in some arbitrary arrangement within that plane to form our "object." The physics of such an object would be weird and counter-intuitive, for sure - the particles would behave in some ways as if the universe only has two spatial dimensions, but still interact with other things in normal ways. Whether such an object would be "solid" or not sort of depends on some assumptions you have to make - does the Pauli exclusion principle apply between the electrons of an ordinary object, unconstrained by this fantasy potential field, and the constrained electrons in this 2D object? To me it makes more sense if the answer is "no," but it could go either way. Could such an object form a rigid structure at all? I don't know, and I don't know that anyone does - what sorts of structures may form when quarks and gluons are constrained to a plane is a question for someone more well-versed in QCD than I, if there is even a sensible answer within our current understanding of particle physics. I'd guess that at best you're going to get some kind of weird diffuse quark-gluon plasma with some electrons floating in it, possibly destined to expand and disperse into very small net-color-and-electric-charge-neutral droplets, vaguely atom-like, bound together by strong and electromagnetic forces. Ultimately, there's a lot we can't really answer about how this would work; it's hard to get intuition for a situation where something as simple as a proton can't exist in the normal way. But ultimately my objection stands. None of these questions change the fact that the object is made of charged particles. Light interacts with charged particles - so why shouldn't it interact with this object? Since the potential field breaks the symmetry in one direction, momentum won't be conserved in that direction (or to put it another way, when the light bounces off of particles in the "object," it will ultimately exchange momentum with the field rather than the particle itself). Its charged particles create fields like any other - so the motions of its particles will generate radio waves and such. I guess you could reasonably say that we don't know whether visible light, in particular, would interact meaningfully with it. But the original post I objected to said ALL light/photons wouldn't be emitted or reflected at all, and I don't see any justification for that position. So, yeah, I thought about this way too much. Gaius Marius posted:Someone posts some stoner thought and suddenly everyone's a scientist or philosopher I spent over 7 years studying physics and the only thing it's useful for is posting
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
lol that red text
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Robyn owns a genre of music my gf and I call "PUNCH DANCE FOR LOVE" You know, when the only way to get your feelings out is to punch dance the air in an abandoned warehouse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ImxY6hnfA
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:lol that red text The text isn’t even the half of it They were nineteenth century whalers in the Southern Ocean and they mention wanting to be resupplied with “sugar and tea and rum” but ZOMG, y’all, those are products of slavery! It’s like trying to own someone in this century for eating chocolate.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The text isn’t even the half of it First of all, that's not what the argument was. Forum user Jezza of OZPOS (named Malcolm Turnbeug at the time) posted that sea shanties are "implicitly supportive of colonialism". Not because specifically the song The Wellerman mentions specific products of slavery, but because nostalgia in general for a white supremacist society is maybe a bad thing. Secondly, as you may have noticed, I am DontMockMySmock and not Jezza of OZPOS. I am of the impression that the person who gave me this red text didn't realize that Jezza and I were different people, since they apparently blamed me for the derail that Jezza started. How appropriate that we're having this discussion in this thread, because apparently you just figured that out, too. I neither started the derail nor contributed more than one (1) post to it. I didn't say a single goddamn word about sea shanties specifically, much less "sugar and tea and rum." You can read the derail yourself if you think I'm lying or something. So if you want to make fun of me for the dumb poo poo I've said then at least quote it properly. God knows I post plenty of dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
what the gently caress is going on
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 11:01
|
|
|
Why would you link to a page that has you posting this on it?DontMockMySmock posted:Romanticizing a history of colonialism, slavery, and oppression has real-world consequences, it's not just a harmless thing that people enjoy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
Stuff I can't believe I just figured out - OP has terrible takes, but those takes are fractionally different to that described in their redtext
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
I sang a sea shanty and it caused real world harm of all the black people in 5 mile radius being worked to death on a sugarcane plantation.
MariusLecter has a new favorite as of 12:10 on May 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
DontMockMySmock posted:nostalgia in general for a white supremacist society is maybe a bad thing. This is why singing Chumbawamba's Tubthumping is morally wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:06
|
|
|
verbal enema posted:lol that red text
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
Liking the viral sea shanties is exactly the same as liking Weezer, weed, and/or anime.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
My favorite sea shanty is about bilge pumping until you die of exhaustion because you're pressed labor on a ship I can't say that's exactly panting for colonialism's dick
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2022 12:37
|
|