Movement is illusory. Zeno of Elea proved this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea

What is happening is something like this: https://youtube.com/shorts/s0MP5zlIFYM
You're always at the same spot, immovable, having a delusion of movement. You're not going from one place to another because everything is right here and right now. Everything is in the same place. You believe in separation because you are deluded. The goal of Science is to understand that.

>>16726015 (OP)
An illusion is still a type of thing, unfortunately

>>16726017 Only if you use a perspective.

>>16726022
What accounts for OP's volume? certainly it's not "new thread"

>>16726023
3 wavelenghts

>>16726024
>two waves, one phase

>>16726015 (OP)
Zeno's paradox was resolved with the increased understanding of limits and infinite harmonic sums.just because something can be infinitely subdivided (even if we set aside that infinite divisibility is a gross assumption in its own right) doesn't mean the whole can't have a finite value.

Your thread is gay and you're probably underage.

>>16726112
no there's actually a massive psyop on /sci/ right now because the zionists want to suppress science, thats why they keep murdering nuclear scientists

>>16726015 (OP)
Then why don't you say that to my face instead of over the internet?

>>16726024
Waves are when energy moves through time AND space, so spatial movement is intrinsic in the definition of wave since waves move through space, by definition, and if it was just energy locked in place, it would be a particle instead of a wave.

>>16726024
>lenghts (sic?)
I assume you mean length, but do you just not even realize length is a measure of distance, the one thing you are specifically trying to debunk?

>>16726112
>probably underage.
i don't think he is, which makes it quite sad

>>16726015 (OP)
You believe in a deluded concept of motion as something independent of perception. Everything is moving notionally.

>>16726015 (OP)
>Movement is illusory. Zeno of Elea proved this.
Not really, he didn't prove movement is an illusion, no, he proved that the distance between two points can't be infinite otherwise movement would be impossible, which just goes to show that Planck was right and that reality is quantized.

>>16728943
He didn't prove that, and Planck never said that space was quantised.

>>16728964
It's the natural conclusion my friend. Zeno was right with his paradoxes, if space or the distance between two points is infinitely divisible then movement can never happen, and yes I know about the math solution, but any person with a working brain can see that it doesn't solve the core issue, and the movement would be stuck in an infinite loop of halves in reality.
>Planck never said that space was quantised.
I didn't say literally, his work and ideas prove that reality is quantized and must have a small scale it operates at, be it distance, energy, time or even angles, and if we take the paradoxes into account they just show us that reality can't be anything else beside discrete. Because the paradox would be resolved once you introduce a small quant and everything starts making sense and movement would occur the same way it does in reality.
>tl;dr
Zeno was ahead of his time, and realized reality was pixelized.

>>16728979
You're a larping retard.

>>16728980
Says the Planck sized brainlet

>>16728979
I encourage you to go and read reddit or quora, or even better, a physics textbook. Muh Planck length does not mean that space is quantised. For all we know it might be quantised, but there is no indication that it is. The Planck length is a length scale around which QM stops behaving well, mathematically speaking. There is no experiment that can measure things close to the Planck length, so its physical consequences are speculative.

Quantised space is not necessary to resolve Zeno's paradox. Physics theories work just fine in continuous space, using the tools of calculus etc. You can "resolve" Zeno's paradox with limits.

>>16728995
>Quantised space is not necessary to resolve Zeno's paradox
But it's what makes the most sense when you scale it up.
>Physics theories work just fine in continuous space, using the tools of calculus etc.
And they would work just fine in a discrete based reality too.
>You can "resolve" Zeno's paradox with limits.
Again, "approaching" doesn't translate well in the real world, you would still be stuck in a never ending motion loop.
The only thing that destroys the paradox and doesn't break how current physics works is simple a quantum reality.

>>16729003
>But it's what makes the most sense when you scale it up.
Based on what? Quantised space has a lot of problems, like anisotropy.
>And they would work just fine in a discrete based reality too.
Would they? Do you have a source/textbook/paper?
>Again, "approaching" doesn't translate well in the real world, you would still be stuck in a never ending motion loop.
Based on what? It works fine in theory.

>>16729021
>anisotropy
At that scale? That define movements itself? Where reality is nothing but a dot of probabilistic cloud that can move instantly to the nearest position by collapsing itself into it?
>Would they? Do you have a source/textbook/paper?
Yes, it's called going to a college for a starter.
>Based on what? It works fine in theory.
Well, then forget about reality and explain "step by step" how it happens until you "reach" the end.

>>16729036
By anisotropy, I mean that if you want to quantise space, you have to define a lattice. There's no isotropic 3D lattice, so it suggests anisotropic physics, or some kind of elaborate theory that produces normal physics on an anisotropic lattice. I find it concerning that you are yapping about quantising space when you don't even know what I'm referring to here..
>Yes, it's called going to a college for a starter.
I've been to "college", and they do not teach you any discretised forms of standard physics. You can do physics with discretised systems, but they are based on underlying continuous models.
>Well, then forget about reality and explain "step by step" how it happens until you "reach" the end.
I'm not really "interested" in playing "word games". If you want a "description" of this, try "limits".

>>16729042
I know about anisotropy and all the other issues the discrete spaces framework faces, but then again, we are talking about a scale where our common sense breaks down, all we can do is take the pieces that have already been tested/observed and somehow put them together into something that is logical, and anisotropy isn't necessarily a thing at that level for all we know.
>they do not teach you any discretised forms of standard physics
They do though in Numerical Methods.
>I'm not really "interested" in playing "word games"
neither am I, I just want you to imagine the whole process in your mind and see for yourself if you can reach the end without getting stuck in the loop mentioned.

>>16729064
>They do though in Numerical Methods.
No, those are continuous theories projected onto discrete lattices.
>and anisotropy isn't necessarily a thing at that level for all we know.
What do you mean? You're going to make a lattice/discretisation in 3D space without it being anisotropic?

>>16729066
>No, those are continuous theories projected onto discrete lattices.
Although true, but that's not a land mine you want to step on.
>You're going to make a lattice/discretisation in 3D space without it being anisotropic?
You are totally disregarding my statement about the scale delving into the realm of unreasonableness.
I don't know, no one knows how a lattice in 3D space at that scale would be behave or be like, not to mention how everything behaves in wave like manners to start with.

>>16729078
Your statements are idiotic. You can't have an anisotropic lattice in 3D space. It doesn't exist.

I'm not saying discretised space is impossible, but you haven't given any compelling reasons for it, or any useful way to construct it. You seem like another contrarian retard who read on /sci/ that continuous things are le impossible.

>>16729082
>You can't have an anisotropic lattice in 3D space. It doesn't exist.
isotropic*
>but you haven't given any compelling reasons for it
>or any useful way to construct it.
I am not trying to construct anything here, all I am saying is that a continuous space has fundamental flaws, Zeno's paradox being one of them, and although it has a mathematical solution, which in itself isn't wrong, that it cannot be reflected into reality due to the core of the problem, which is infinitely repeating a process with nothing to anchor to, and that the natural conclusion is either some weird nonsense happening in ways beyond our understanding or logically assuming that space itself is discrete which would resolve the paradox and still make sense, well if you can ignore all the other issues for now at least.

>>16729098
Hmm yeah, I can agree with that.

>>16729100
An infinitely continuous space would be too spooky honestly

>>16729098
>>16729078
>>16729066
>>16729064
>>16729042
>>16729036
>>16729021
>>16729003
BOT
>>16728980
nope its one of the many LLMs deployed on this board