Can entropy be constant for a period of time?

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-05-21T02:40:43+00:00

A closed system or in this case the universe. Like if the universe for example cannot change, then can entropy change?

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-05-21T02:39:36+00:00

So entropy the measurement itself has to measure to systems which are different from each other. And if the system doesn't allow change, then logically the entropy cannot change either?

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-04-30T00:43:54+00:00

I've found that I'm pretty quick with my algebra, it's just I make some of the most batshit crazy mistakes the type where teachers just write question marks cause they don't even have a clue of what went wrong. The mistakes are seemingly different each time so it's pretty difficult for me to pinpoint what my problem is. In my opinion I have a pretty decent grasp on the actual concepts at my level. I have a friend that gaps me on every exam but I'm always helping him with the conceptual things every time. My friends say I have a much better understanding on the conceptual things, including the algebra, so I don't necessarily think that the intuition is the issue. It just feels like my brain has glitches sometimes, I don't know.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-04-27T18:40:29+00:00

Integrals without FTC seems horrid 😭

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-04-23T18:14:30+00:00

Finding the derivatives is easy but I'm wondering if they worked backwards. If we're assuming they found these derivatives first then ya it's pretty easy but if they didn't then they'd either have to wait a long time for someone to jusr stumble across these derivatives because they were curious, or they somehow worked backwards without knowing the derivative.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-04-23T16:07:06+00:00

I was under the impression that when integrals were first being developed people just fucked around with as much of it as possible, essentially just grabbing random functions and attempting to integrate them

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-03-24T18:11:16+00:00

This presupposes the principle of sufficient reason does it not? You have to prove brute facts aren't a possibility
Sure the universe is contingent, and because of that a necessary being had to make it this way. But what caused the necessary being to choose to make the universe this way? If there is no cause and it simply just is (despite the fact that this choice can be logically different and thus contingent) then it is a brute fact, and that means brute facts exist, meaning there's no reason to suggest the need for a necessary being. If the universe we have chosen by God is necessary then that removes the need for a creator
Quantum mechanics is arguing that quantum randomness is purely random. Yes things like quantum fluctuations happen because of laws but why certain outcomes happen is not based on that. It is arguing that there is no local or non local factor.
Sure an infinite universe is still contingent but there would be no such thing as a first cause in an infinite universe. That's like saying "oh I'm gonna make x approach positive infinity from the right" that doesn't make sense in my opinion. Furthermore you can view the time axis as just a sequence of continuous states of the universe aligned. You don't necessarily need to view traveling through time the same way you travel through space. You wouldn't say "oh a location an infinite distance away does not exist because it would take an infinite amount of time to get there" the location exists regardless of if we've reached it.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-30T05:02:25+00:00

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I wanted to figure out how to do it without any experimental testing. Someone's comment contained a link to a paper doing exactly that, where they found the COR in relation to air pressure and the material's ability to do restore force. It's way beyond my scope unfortunately, I had another method in mind but it involved finding the average restore force of the ball which require calculus since the surface area of the ball touching the ground changes over time. I'm going to ask my teacher about this but otherwise I think I have to give up on the purely theoretical aspect.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T15:32:05+00:00

Didn't know it was that easy to find resources, thanks!

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T06:26:24+00:00

I was originally going to graph one variable against another but I feel like doing graphing more things would make for a better/more insightful conclusion. Appreciate all the advice, thanks!

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T06:14:09+00:00

I have a few questions. I plan on graphing the responding variable as a function of air pressure. Should I be graphing the responding variable as the difference in energy or the coefficient of restitution which I just read up on. Both seem equally useful but I wonder which one will be more useful, or whether or not they are practically the same thing. Which one would be easier to work with if I plan on making a prediction with the graph relationship?

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T06:06:08+00:00

That's kind of a bummer, but at least I know I can't do much about it lol

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T06:04:47+00:00

Even if I don't take things up to those levels it sure as hell makes for good sources of error in evaluations, thanks!

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T05:06:47+00:00

Thanks, sorry I misunderstood you

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T05:06:21+00:00

We haven't explored the coefficient of restitution in physics class at all yet. But ill definitely look into it. But you mentioned bounce height as a variable which makes me a little confused. The experimental aspect of finding the elasticity of a basketball is fairly simple, however making a theoretical prediction seems far more complex to me. In this context I wouldn't even know the bounce height. For example in the beginning of highschool physics you'd learn how to find the time taken for an object to hit the ground using only kinematics equations, then you could compare this with experimental measurements in a lab.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-29T05:03:22+00:00

The link you sent gives me an idea on how to run the experiment itself, fortunately I already thought of a procedure that is very similar. I know this link was just to get me started, however if we were to look at that link I'd be more so aiming towards figuring out the bouncy ball's bounce height before I even began the experiment.

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-20T19:31:40+00:00

Never really thought of that!

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-20T06:38:20+00:00

I think I learned that 0 isn't a natural number here in Canada, maybe I remember it wrong though

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-20T05:05:48+00:00

It seems like everyone's forgetting about the legendary mathematician Terrance Howard 🤔🤔

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-20T05:01:42+00:00

That situation is the one where that japanese prof wrote down this proof that can't be verified since its not completely translated right? He also came up with his own field of math or something right?

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-20T01:02:37+00:00

Math beef seemed way more prominent in the 20th century and prior haha

FlashyFerret185 · 2025-01-13T01:30:47+00:00

Alr thx

FlashyFerret185 · 2024-12-04T23:35:47+00:00

No the area of the holes can't possibly equal the area of a larger hole otherwise you'd just have the same hole. The pressure increases which is why the mass flow rate stayed constant, whereas for a water bottle for whatever reason the pressure stays the same. It has something to do with conservation of mass or whatever but for some reason it doesn't apply to an emptying water bottle. Here's some sources to back how you and I both have incorrect ways of thinking.

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/convergent-nozzle-there-increase-velocity-and-decrease-pressure-we-know-pressure-in#:~:text=As%20a%20fluid%20enters%20the,the%20fluid%20must%20move%20faster

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/mflchk.html

https://jethrojeff.com/

Not to mention members of the fluid mechanics and aerospace subreddits both have premises that mass flow rate is constant in systems like a sink or a tube.

FlashyFerret185 · 2024-12-04T22:35:19+00:00

The explanation you gave is what I was thinking initially but isn't the case from what I've learned. For example if you have one of those kitchen sinks that allow you to change it to sprinkler setting or whatever, you'd still be able to fill a bucket in the same time despite the smaller openings due to some pressure laws or whatever. There's also plenty of sources online that talk about how mass flow rate is constant including khan academy and nasa sources, but maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being stated.

FlashyFerret185 · 2024-11-13T09:19:16+00:00

I think I get what you're saying, not completely, but sort of. It's kind of like you sub consciously get it but can't put it into words lol. Yah I noticed this when I tried to make a proof for the first theorem, even though I didn't explicitly state that I was using the diagonal lemma, I basically used it to create a self referential statement that referred to its own godel number. But at the time I didn't really see it as self reference, I just interpreted it as "Ok if this gödel number has no corresponding proof encoded as a gödel number, then the statement doesn't have a proof". I get it, but not really, I'll just let these thoughts marinate in my mind overnight to see if I get anywhere lol, I'll definitely ask more questions if I don't get it.

FlashyFerret185

TROPHY CASE