/plaza/ - General/Random

IMG_2642.png
[Hide] (258.3KB, 567x313)

I should probably beat the living the dogshit outta you mister. We could be making a time machine, but your dumbass instead of contributing to human advancement you decide to post a thread of nothing, and I have to come here and fill it up. Seriously, fuck you.

­

>>9023 (OP) 
you may think this thread is about nothing in particular when really it's about nothing, in particular

i'm actually really interested in nothing as a philosophical concept. is a vacuum nothing? there are still virtual particles. can you even have a region of space with not only no particles but also no fields? not in this universe i'd say. much to think about...

>>9044
I've always thought of nothing as the presence of absence as opposed to the lack of presence. Nothing is still something, even if it's nothing. It is different from being not any thing. The lack of any thing would amount to total annihilation, beyond the point of human comprehension. If you atomize a basketball, it becomes nothing, but in order for the basketball to be not any thing, you would need to destroy the basketball, destroy the concept of the basketball general and specific, destroy the memory of the basketball, even far beyond those things. Certainly not possible in this universe, no.

>>9033
Gesundheit.

>>9044
the absence of presence in itself is not the presence of absence in the sense that there really is never any such thing as "nothing" for energy exists in a multitude of ways that can be measured in the sense that "nothing" is in its most literal senses simply a negative-concept that we came up with in order to try simplifying an infinitely complex universe in the same sense how we might try making perfect measurements but truthfully everything exists on an infinitely down-scale-able gradient, we'd like to believe that positive and negative exist but in the reality of the life we live in there really is no such thing as negative numbers, they're abstract concepts that help us scale-down the world so that we can process certain things to get other things done. Nothing in life is truthfully a constant in a similar fashion to how gravity despite being treated as a technical constant, is in reality a constantly fluctuating force that will impact differing levels (which extends to practically the entirety of the universe, only so much so that we are mostly gravitated towards the densest forces near us, so that the infinitely affecting forces of gravitation can be ignored for certain measurements) as opposed to what they teach in the schools. 

>>9045
>beyond the point of human comprehension
sure maybe for someone of your caliber I wouldn't doubt

>>9046
Dont worry anon i will use the power of grok to debunk this lmao


Negative numbers are “abstract concepts… there really is no such thing” — Mostly false; they have real physical bite
Positive and negative are conventions (we could flip all signs and rewrite the equations), but they map directly onto observable asymmetries in nature:
•  Electric charge: electrons carry -e, protons +e. You can’t “remove” that minus sign without breaking electromagnetism.
•  Vectors and directions: velocity, force, displacement—negative just means opposite direction. Real arrows in space.
•  Potential energy: gravitational potential is negative (you need energy to escape to infinity). The total energy of the observable universe is plausibly zero: positive matter/radiation energy exactly balanced by negative gravitational potential. This is how some models explain “universe from nothing.”
Math doesn’t just “scale down” the world here—it reveals structure that experiments confirm. Zero and negatives aren’t fictional; they’re as real as the electron in your body right now having a negative charge.
4. Nothing in life is a true constant; gravity is “constantly fluctuating” and schools teach it wrong — Half-true (the useful distinction schools make)
Here’s the crucial clarification:
•  Capital-G (the universal gravitational constant) is constant, within every test we’ve thrown at it. Latest CODATA value:  G = 6.67430(15) \times 10^{-11}  m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Cosmological data (supernovae, CMB) show it hasn’t changed by more than 1 part in 10 billion over 9 billion years. Lab measurements have discrepancies, but those are experimental systematics, not evidence of variation. Theories allowing varying-G exist, but evidence says no.
•  Small-g (local gravitational acceleration, ~9.81 m/s²) does fluctuate constantly—by tiny amounts due to latitude, altitude, geology, tides, even air density. That’s what you feel varying. Schools teach  g \approx 9.8  as a handy local average because for 99% of real-world problems (bridges, projectiles, elevators) the variation is irrelevant noise. Advanced classes do note it varies and teach the full Newton’s law:
The force drops with distance squared, so distant masses (Sun, galaxies) affect you at the level of microns per year—measurable with precision instruments but ignorable for everyday calculations, exactly as you said. Schools aren’t lying; they’re giving you the model that works at the scale you’re operating. The “constant” is G; the “fluctuating force” is what you experience locally. Spot-on observation, but the terminology mixes G and g.

>>9048
Grok seems to have displaced your ability to keep basic track of a conversation it seems. The discussion was what "nothing" in itself is or isn't. I didn't say "things of opposing natures don't exist" so much as I said that negative things (i.e. "-3 apples") are an abstract concept generated through the inversal of our understanding of the positive concepts insofar that our brains try to understand what things are by comparing them to what things are not. The rest of your response also seems much like ADHD brainrot in that you're quoting some shit generated by a ragebait AI and you clearly didn't care do to jackshit for research. gravity at 9.81 m/s^2 is only a "constant" insofar that that's because the earth's gravitational pull is such an overwhelming force that for basically all objects at a certain size and scale and down to specific fractals, 9.81 will be a consistent measurement, except when you go three fractals deep you'll realize that past 9.81 it'll be 9.813 for some and 9.815 for others and and that this gravitational pull in its actuality varies in how much force it applies to things depending on how close, or further they are from the globe and that its not a sole operator of its own but instead a complex system of co-affecting factors that are constantly impacting how one another work (i.e. hi. go look up what terminal velocity is you inbred) and we only refer to 9.81 because its reliably consistent enough that we can take this as reference for calculating for things reliably which does change not the fact, that, gravity, in itself, also exists on a gradient.

god. I get that you wanna be a smartass. maybe try being a smartass without using the world's most inundane, mouth-breathing, rage-baiting ai model built off of twitter arguments when you're trying to do that. grok is not a scientist. I didn't tell you anything that you couldn't've fact checked if you weren't being such an entitled pedant who feels owed the right to "be right" without actually going to see if what they're being told are correct or not. gross.

you really think using grok gives you some kind of authority or something it really just makes you look like a lazy dumbass who can't even speak his own words, fucking ew lmao

>>9048
I don't even get it. are you sure you've read what you pasted there because clearly it's basically agreed with me that gravity does fluctuate which it also infers to as being taught in advanced classes? Was this a "bit" ? whatever

>>9049
I see the point you’re making, but I think some of it may be getting talked past rather than directly engaged with.

On the idea of “nothing,” my response wasn’t meant to deny that negative quantities can be understood as abstractions derived from positive ones. That’s a reasonable philosophical position. What I was trying to get at is that, in many fields (like mathematics and physics), negative values aren’t treated as merely secondary—they function as consistent, well-defined parts of the system with their own rules and predictive power. So the disagreement seems less about whether abstraction is involved, and more about how foundational those abstractions are.

Regarding gravity, I don’t think we actually disagree on the substance. The value 9.81 m/s² is clearly a simplification—an average near Earth’s surface used because it’s practical and reliable in most contexts. As you pointed out, gravitational acceleration varies with altitude, local density, and other factors. That variability is already built into how physics models gravity, so I don’t think anyone here was claiming it’s a perfectly uniform constant in all situations.

Where this conversation could probably improve is tone. Some of the phrasing you used comes across as dismissive and personal, which makes it harder to focus on the actual ideas being discussed. I’m interested in having a productive exchange about the concepts themselves, but that works best when both sides assume good faith and stick to the arguments rather than the person making them.

If you’re open to it, I’m happy to keep digging into the philosophical side of “nothing” or the physics side of reference values and approximations—there’s a lot of interesting nuance in both.

you want to be vriska. you're gonna be vriska. you wanna be this "I'm a giga genius manipulator" thing. You're gonna be it. You're gonna take that pike up yours until you realize what the cost of being that is. You wanna have your cake and eat it too. I'm gonna choke that cake in your throats. You wanna be sly. You wanna pull strings. You're gonna choke in those strings. You wanna borrow power. I'm gonna shove some straight inside you until you feel it reach your ribs. You want to hold the flames you're gonna feel them devour you. what you're getting. You wanted to stay in the way of the train. We have a schedule, sadly. goreblog into "why you shouldn't stand in the way of the train", sadly! You asked for this. When it comes to be that you start regretting it, don't forget that. You're obsessed with power. I'll choke you on it.

>>9062
Why It's always about hoemsuck. . .

>>9063
how can you escape the homestuck if it's already here??

almostnothing.png
[Hide] (70B, 1x1)

>>9063
You expect me to believe you're not stuck at home?

>>9067
You're not funny posting the same joke OP made.

wait a second