NationStates Jolt Archive

People seem to invoke the principles of the Universe often on this forum. For the sake of others, I thought it would be useful to have this principles written down. Give any laws, theories, equations, etc. which are the fundamental principles of the Cosmos. Here are a few of the simpler ones.


An object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest, until a force acts on it
Force equals mass times acceleration
I am always right
For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction
Socrates is mortal

6. Godwin's law (all internet debates will, if unimpeded by outside forces, will degenerate into one party comparing his opponent to Hitler.)

6. Godwin's law (all internet debates will, if unimpeded by outside forces, will degenerate into one party comparing his opponent to Hitler.)

MEMES!!

(Sorry, I'm doing a whole presentation centred around memes, Richard Dawkins, and Godwin's Law)


On-topic:
7. You can't create matter or energy from nothing.
8. Nothing goes faster than light.

6. Godwin's law (all internet debates will, if unimpeded by outside forces, will degenerate into one party comparing his opponent to Hitler.)

bah, the comparison has to have nothing to do with the actual topic, as well.

Invariably, anything to do with welfare will be decried as socialism by at least one person.

bah, the comparison has to have nothing to do with the actual topic, as well.

Actually, the original Law, as stated by Godwin himself (October 1994, Wired Magazine, "Meme, Counter-Meme") is "As an online discussion grows longer, the possibility of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." (That's all part of my memorized presentation, by the way)

6. Godwin's law (all internet debates will, if unimpeded by outside forces, will degenerate into one party comparing his opponent to Hitler.)

I believe the law also states that the knowledge of the debaters is inversely proportional to the speed at which the Hitler analogy pops up.
I would like to add a corollary: the liklihood of the analogy increases as the thread continues.
Put together, here is the final equation:
H=(1/k)*P+G

H is the probability of the next post using a Hitler analogy, k is a parameter based on the mean IQ and total knowledge surrounding the subject divided by the number of posts, P is the passion of the debate in :upyours: per post, and G is Godwin's constant, which is probably about 0.05.
In other words, a thread with a k value of 5 and P equaling 2.25 would have an H value of 0.5. A fifty-fifty chance, in other words.

6. Godwin's law (all internet debates will, if unimpeded by outside forces, will degenerate into one party comparing his opponent to Hitler.)

thats what Hitler said!

9: if someone makes a hitler refrence after someone mentions goodwins law, he will be attacked by a cat attack squardon within 3 hours. He will then forget about the attack within 30 seconds.

10: the number of smilies used in a post can be used to find a posters I.Q.

11: grammer nazis and 1337 sp33k fanboys are always of equal number.

10: the number of smilies used in a post can be used to find a posters I.Q.

:eek:

:(

:eek:

:(

(L-S)^2*30= approx I.Q, (+,_) 40pts.

# An object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest, until a force acts on it
# Force equals mass times acceleration
For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction
Newtonian, so in general accurate... however there are some veryyyyyyyyy small deviations. Relativity kicks in...

Nothing goes faster than light.
WRONG!
Nothing that has mass, takes up space, or transmits information can go faster than the speed of light. Anything that has mass cannot go at the speed of light either. So innocuous concepts (such as, for example, the expansion of the universe, which due to red-shifting is probably going faster than the speed of light) can, and loopholes (wormholes, space-time warping, trans-dimensional, or some other exotic method) can get around this.

Nothing that has mass, takes up space, or transmits information can go faster than the speed of light. Anything that has mass cannot go at the speed of light either. So innocuous concepts (such as, for example, the expansion of the universe, which due to red-shifting is probably going faster than the speed of light) can, and loopholes (wormholes, space-time warping, trans-dimensional, or some other exotic method) can get around this.

:headbang: I knew that. I was having momentary stupid.

Principle of the universe: things are as they appear to be, until their appearance changes.

This is a restatement of the OP's principle # 3. But never mind.

11: grammer nazis and 1337 sp33k fanboys are always of equal number.

1 7h1nk y0u m34n7 "6r4mm4r".
:rolleyes:

Newtonian, so in general accurate... however there are some veryyyyyyyyy small deviations. Relativity kicks in...


WRONG!
Nothing that has mass, takes up space, or transmits information can go faster than the speed of light. Anything that has mass cannot go at the speed of light either. So innocuous concepts (such as, for example, the expansion of the universe, which due to red-shifting is probably going faster than the speed of light) can, and loopholes (wormholes, space-time warping, trans-dimensional, or some other exotic method) can get around this.

Technically inaccurate. The "loopholes" don't actually "get around it." Essentially a wormhole is a shortcut between two points/regions in spacetime. An object moving within the wormhole still can't move at a velocity greater than the speed of light. However, it appears to move from one point to a distance point in a much faster time than it would normally take, which could be faster than the time it would take for light to go from the same point to the other point moving in normal space. The time of traversal might be lower than the traversal time of light on the non-wormhole path, but velocity is still always sub-luminal.

I believe the law also states that the knowledge of the debaters is inversely proportional to the speed at which the Hitler analogy pops up.
I would like to add a corollary: the liklihood of the analogy increases as the thread continues.
Put together, here is the final equation:
H=(1/k)*P+G

H is the probability of the next post using a Hitler analogy, k is a parameter based on the mean IQ and total knowledge surrounding the subject divided by the number of posts, P is the passion of the debate in :upyours: per post, and G is Godwin's constant, which is probably about 0.05.
In other words, a thread with a k value of 5 and P equaling 2.25 would have an H value of 0.5. A fifty-fifty chance, in other words.

Indeed. Well thought out.

Shit happens.

The length of time between a new forum user posting and them giving up and/or being banned is directly related to the number of smilies they use in their first post.

The correct answer to any OP will be given within the first page - from there on in, it's a mixture of spam and re-hashing.

No matter how you squirm and how you dance, the last two drops go in your pants. *nod*

People seem to invoke the principles of the Universe often on this forum. For the sake of others, I thought it would be useful to have this principles written down. Give any laws, theories, equations, etc. which are the fundamental principles of the Cosmos. Here are a few of the simpler ones.


An object in motion will stay in motion, and an object at rest will stay at rest, until a force acts on it
Force equals mass times acceleration
I am always right
For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction
Socrates is mortal
Two is technically wrong. Force equals the derivative of momentum with respect to time: F=dp/dt. In cases where an objects mass stays the same it simplifies to F=ma.

Given F=dp/dt 1 and 4 are obvious. I really don't understand why Newton has three laws, given one you can derive the other two. It is just redundant.

Rule 34.

Shit happens.


"Shit happens" is the Newtonian version. An approximation.

After more detailed study, it has been found that shit doesn't just happen -- some arsehole does it.
Yeah, it's from a bumper sticker.

the possibilities of existence are not limited by human ignorance.
the probable continuation of human existence might be.
what your neighbor thinks you know might hurt you.
the artificial reality of symbolic value is not a default condition of the universe.

all of knowledge will always be less then all there is to be known.

unless you were born outdoors or in a tent, there were probably other rooms then the one you were born in. (and not all of them empty!) this is analagous to humanity's position in the universe.

=^^=
.../\...

On-topic:
7. You can't create matter or energy from nothing.
8. Nothing goes faster than light.

7. Can. Quantum fluctuation in a void state ( |0> ) can lead to the creation of a particle-antiparticle couple.

8. Nothing with a rest mass, that is.



Also, you cannot justify fully any logical set within itself - that is, for any given branch of knowledge A, you must create a metaA to justify A. (Gödel's incompleteness theorem).

I really don't understand why Newton has three laws, given one you can derive the other two. It is just redundant.

Mostly, it is because you must evaluate the whole system, not just one body.

In any given system, it is:
(Vector sum of all external forces) = (time derivative of vector sum of all momenta).

The speed of light in constant is the same in every inertial reference frame.

The above causes very weird things to start happening.

Two is technically wrong. Force equals the derivative of momentum with respect to time: F=dp/dt. In cases where an objects mass stays the same it simplifies to F=ma.

Given F=dp/dt 1 and 4 are obvious. I really don't understand why Newton has three laws, given one you can derive the other two. It is just redundant.

I always thought the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is a little unnecessary. Although considering they bothered to retrospectively put it in there.

Zeroth Law of the Internet: There is no conspiracy.

Zeroth Law of the Internet: There is no conspiracy.I always thought it said the opposite?

I always thought it said the opposite?

Well there's also what I call Rule /b/, which states that rules of the internet are for rulefags.

Sod's law, if it can go wrong, it will.

Rule 34.
Indeed, although I struggle to envisage the result of rule 34 applied to a forum like this one.:eek:

Indeed, although I struggle to envisage the result of rule 34 applied to a forum like this one.:eek:

Porn of nationstates? Hmmm, [violet]/Max? HotRodia/Kat/Fris? The possibilites are endless and amusing. IB/UB.

MEMES!!

(Sorry, I'm doing a whole presentation centred around memes, Richard Dawkins, and Godwin's Law)


On-topic:
7. You can't create matter or energy from nothing.
8. Nothing goes faster than light.

8. Nothing goes faster than light.

No?

Check this one:
http://dustbunny.physics.indiana.edu/~dzierba/HonorsF97/Week1/NYTJuly22.html

The correct answer to any OP will be given within the first page - from there on in, it's a mixture of spam and re-hashing.

You know that's not true. Sometimes it takes ten pages to get the right answer. Sometimes there is no right answer. Some OP's don't require an answer.

And some threads are just an open invitation to God. Post now, ya hairy old myth, or forever hold your peace ...

Way to kill a thread. Nice one, Hobos ...

Rule 57: Sooner or later, Nobel Hobos will kill your thread.

7. Can. Quantum fluctuation in a void state ( |0> ) can lead to the creation of a particle-antiparticle couple.


Yeah, but because it's a particle-antiparticle pair, there is no creation of net mass.

Yeah, but because it's a particle-antiparticle pair, there is no creation of net mass.

Yes, it is creation of net mass. Mass is always non-negative, both for particles and antiparticles.

The only universal law that matters:

"Life's a bitch, and then you die."

Rule 57: Sooner or later, Nobel Hobos will kill your thread.

Rule 18: Your Lord God may be omniscient, but he can't spell.

It's not spelled the way it's written. You literate golfball you. :fluffle:

7. Can. Quantum fluctuation in a void state ( |0> ) can lead to the creation of a particle-antiparticle couple.

8. Nothing with a rest mass, that is.



Also, you cannot justify fully any logical set within itself - that is, for any given branch of knowledge A, you must create a metaA to justify A. (Gödel's incompleteness theorem).

I'd like to add that these fluctuations even out over time and distances, so that conservation is still maintained over sufficiently large time interval. It's just when you get down to a really small scale with really short time intervals that these fluctuations become a noticeable violation of conservation.

Yes, nothing with a rest mass, which is why while a photon has no rest mass, it has a calculable mass based on its momentum at any given time. It's still a really small number, but it's there.

Yeah, but because it's a particle-antiparticle pair, there is no creation of net mass.

What?! Bullshit.

Both the particle and the antiparticle have positive mass (In fact, they have an equal positive mass).

The only difference between the particle and antiparticle is the CHARGE.

So an electron and positron both have mass m_sub_e, but an electron is negatively charged and a positron is positively charged.

The only difference between the particle and antiparticle is the CHARGE.


So what the hell is mass? Radiation with no place to go?

I would ask if there is any anti- to mass, but I fear the answer would be all pointy with squiggles in.

One religious or ethno/racial group will always be singled out as either inferior and primitive in comparison to everything else on the planet, or decried as pure anthropomorphic evil that needs to be exterminated in order to bring about world peace and harmony.

The fifth fundamental force in the universe is Irony.

So what the hell is mass? Radiation with no place to go?

I would ask if there is any anti- to mass, but I fear the answer would be all pointy with squiggles in.

Wouldn't energy be the "anti-" to mass? I mean, if you "destroy" mass, then your result is energy, right? Then, again, I'm no physicist, unfortunately. ;)

Absolutes should not be used in reasoned debate. There's almost always an exception.

So what the hell is mass? Radiation with no place to go?

I would ask if there is any anti- to mass, but I fear the answer would be all pointy with squiggles in.I'm afraid pointy, squiggly answers are all you're gonna get to that kind of questions. You might want to look up invariant mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass) though.

What?! Bullshit.

Both the particle and the antiparticle have positive mass (In fact, they have an equal positive mass).

The only difference between the particle and antiparticle is the CHARGE.

So an electron and positron both have mass m_sub_e, but an electron is negatively charged and a positron is positively charged.

I guess I'm showing my failure at non-Newtonian physics, because I always thought that antiparticles= anti-mass = anti-matter = negative mass. Clearly, I'm wrong, and I'll step out now.

I guess I'm showing my failure at non-Newtonian physics, because I always thought that antiparticles= anti-mass = anti-matter = negative mass. Clearly, I'm wrong, and I'll step out now.

Wrong antiparticles have identical mass to their particle counterparts. The only difference between the two (and it's the important difference) is in charge, which is just a reversal of sign.


Hobos: There are actually technically 2 different kinds of mass, gravitational and inertial. Classically both values are equal, but it's theoretically possible for an object to have a different inertial mass than gravitational mass.

As far as what mass...IS, well that's a bit more mathy. Here's a nice wikipedia article that might "help." And by "help" I mean probably confuse the hell out of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Wrong antiparticles have identical mass to their particle counterparts. The only difference between the two (and it's the important difference) is in charge, which is just a reversal of sign.


Hobos: There are actually technically 2 different kinds of mass, gravitational and inertial. Classically both values are equal, but it's theoretically possible for an object to have a different inertial mass than gravitational mass.

As far as what mass...IS, well that's a bit more mathy. Here's a nice wikipedia article that might "help." And by "help" I mean probably confuse the hell out of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

The bad thing about Wiki articles like that is that they're written with the understanding the reader will be well versed in many higher physics concepts. Sure they toss some links here and there, but that's hardly helpful if all the links are the same way.

The bad thing about Wiki articles like that is that they're written with the understanding the reader will be well versed in many higher physics concepts. Sure they toss some links here and there, but that's hardly helpful if all the links are the same way.

They assume that because, really, you need some sort of a background in higher physics concepts to understand a higher physics concept. It's the same way with all the sciences - I can't explain to you the idea of non-degenerate octahedral electron orbitals unless you've got some sort of a background in chemistry.

Originally posted by Deus Malum
Technically inaccurate. The "loopholes" don't actually "get around it." Essentially a wormhole is a shortcut between two points/regions in spacetime. An object moving within the wormhole still can't move at a velocity greater than the speed of light. However, it appears to move from one point to a distance point in a much faster time than it would normally take, which could be faster than the time it would take for light to go from the same point to the other point moving in normal space. The time of traversal might be lower than the traversal time of light on the non-wormhole path, but velocity is still always sub-luminal.
Actually, they do get around it, because you aren't physically moving at the speed of light and yet achieve the same results. Thus 'get around the barrier' and not 'achieve penetration of said barrier'.

Actually, they do get around it, because you aren't physically moving at the speed of light and yet achieve the same results. Thus 'get around the barrier' and not 'achieve penetration of said barrier'.

Fair enough, though that sounds like more of a semantic distinction than anything else.

18. Gravity, although weak, kills.

32. E=MC(2) [squared]

42. "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -Douglas Adams

58. "Time is an abstract concept developed by carbon based life forms to monitor their rate of decay"

99. Anyone who makes an anti-gay remark is in reality a closet case.

Granted, but its closer to what I originally meant. (resolves to be clearer)

Granted, but its closer to what I originally meant. (resolves to be clearer)

Then all is well.

The universe is indifferent.

A thread in its infancy will be spammy followed by intelligent debate followed by science talk(anti-particles??1?!/) and then reincarnated into its original form.

So I predict a spam front coming in.

Click Stand;13156322']

So I predict a spam front coming in.

Flagatagaloo!

@[NS]Click Stand:
Darnit...And here i was looking forward to some serious debate of the actual nature of the laws of the universe of internet...or something..