/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11381908
>why are they present?
Because it's a stable shape proteins choose to form to

>>11381908
Those are landers built by very tiny e.t. people.

most of the time its the most energy efficient (=stable) configuration for a thing to be in, for example the geometrical grids of many metals and salts stem simply from the fact that this is an energetic minimum.
for viruses in particular it is actually the same. remember, they do not build their capsid themselves but have a host cell do it for them, so it should be structured in such a way that it comes together easily, without much enzymatic help. this is why its made up of triangles like that and very often icosaedric, the pieces come together pretty much on their own because their most energetically stable state is the finished capsid.

fractals are usually a way to increase surface area but feel free to ask about specific examples where this does not apply.

>>11381922
What about this retard chan

>>11382196
Taking on a stable form, are you retarded, a faggot or do you just refuse to read?

>>11382202
what's the relationship between proteins and rocks?

>>11382196
When you pack circles into a square, what pattern do they like to form?

>>11382210
It's not necessarily about proteins or rocks in particular. There are common shapes that show up constantly in nature (you may notice the chainlink fence pattern for fish scales, which also shows up on the bark of trees among many other places). There's really not that much in common between fish and trees, but there are forms of matter which provide great protection, stability, strength, etc. If you see a shape repeated, you should ask yourself what it useful function that it provides both of them and that's likely your answer

>>11382210
Nothing, when I was talking about proteins I was referring to the virus' icosahedronic "head" shape, non proteins like rocks can take specific geometric shapes as well like the pyrite posted.

>>11382214
>>11382224
OP was asking at what point do they form and why
Truth is you don't know and neither do I
It's like asking "why is space empty?" well we know but at the same time we don't

Not sure if I'm clear here but it's hard to explain in english
We know the how, we don't know the why

>>11382235
I don’t think I understand the question then. They start forming as the atoms become available. For animals, this is dictated by genes, protein expression, subsequent construction.

For non living material, the atoms simply configure into the most energy efficient state dependent on the type of bonds it forms.

>>11382224
So in other words you make an assumption and were wrong to do so.

>>11382235
>OP was asking at what point do they form and why
What's your point? I was responding to >>11382210. If that wasn't OP, then I wasn't responding to OP. If it was, then that is a different question than "what point do they form and why". So speak for yourself.

>>11382261
Okay I'll rephrase the question :
>the atoms simply configure into the most energy efficient state dependent on the type of bonds it forms.

I understand but why? Why is that so?
Why do atoms behave like this? do they have a will, why does nature(the universe) behave like this?
See? nobody has an answer yet, but we know How they behave, not why

>>11382266
I'm both >>11382235 and >>11382210
also see above

>>11382264
I am right tho, brainlet.

>>11382268

I just figured bonds form due to an innate nature of their properties, and not abiding by these principles goes against order.
The laws of nature dictate an entropy to reduce disorder.
But who truly knows, maybe ICP was right about the scientists that wrote our books.

>>11382268
No matter what answer anybody gives you can always smugly reply, "Why? See? But why does that happen? Nobody has answer."

Think of it this way, anon: imagine if everything outside your bedroom window was now transparent. What use would a window now have? There would be nothing to look at, there would be no end, no grounding to anything. Every single mathematical textbook you read presupposes a set of axioms, from which everything is then built. This is how the world works.

The answer, "atoms move to be in the least energy state" is how the world works and is totally sufficient. A ball rolls down a hill for the exact same reason.

>>11382281
It's sufficient for you perhaps but I think there is actually an answer
I said we don't know why yet, not that there isn't an answer
I believe there is one
Can't think that the universe exists just because it exists or that it's laws are like this "because"

If we discover that our universe is one among others with differents laws, it would be a good start

>>11382268
Ah, here's the quote I was half-assing, it took awhile for me to find it and who said it,
>You cannot go on 'seeing through' things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.
In other words, everything is necessarily built upon "first principles" for which there is no answer.

>>11382312
Well, you are just going to lead a miserable life with no *meaning* if you can't accept first principles. The entire modern world is built off of first principles, for which there is no answer. Your phone, computer, the internet, bridges, all of it is grounded by mathematical assumptions. Everything will always be grounded by assumptions. Why is the speed of light the exact number that it is? Because that's just the way it is. Deal with it.

>>11382323
>Well, you are just going to lead a miserable life with no *meaning*

I'm already a nihilist anon, I'm just glad I'm able to experience the universe for now
Truth is we are the universe experiencing itself, it's amazing enough for me

If we found a universe where light is slower or faster than our own, there would be a way to understand why
Though I highly doubt humanity will go that far

>>11382313
> everything is necessarily built upon "first principles" for which there is no answer.
>Yet

Time seems to be infinite so sooner or later, someone or something will find out

>>11381925
>Truth is we are the universe experiencing itself

>>11381908
>why are they present?
because that form works, I swear you guys pretend to not understand shit just to ask dumb ass questions. What answer are you exactly even looking for?

>>11383045
wow you posted an image made by sombody else
used a forced green text meme created by somebody else
added nothing to the conversation

I think reddit is probably better for you man

>>11383119
>wow you posted an image made by sombody else
>used a forced green text meme created by somebody else
>added nothing to the conversation

>I think reddit is probably better for you man

>>11381908
In reality, bacteriophages are a lot blobbier. They also shake around a lot due to thermal motion.

>>11381908
Something something sacred geometry
Also, dudeweed.

>>11383391

geometry isn't really that sacred. Because geometry is a secondary byproduct of the forces pulling those atoms together.

Whats sacred is that actual force.