Conservation of area is not a law of nature.
Can’t see the other side- if it’s a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object in can still be accurate because of perspective.
There’s a third dimension now?
Not really, but it’s a useful assumption for lots of different types of maths.
As long as everything you imagine in 3D space is spherical
Quaternions make a whole lot more sense when you imagine a third spatial axis and use them to rotate a hypothetical 3D object.
This is madness!!!
Yes, time is the third dimension.
Yes, and now some bozos are even discussing a 4th dimension. Something to do with chess, I think.
Always has been
My thoughts precisely, they are just assumimg this is just a 2D circle, when in reality it’s more likely to be a 3D sphere. They aren’t accounting for the area of a 3D object, we don’t even know the thickness of the “slices” that are flying.
Sphere vs circle
Why assume it started off as a sphere? Everything makes sense if it started off as an irregular blob.
It might well have started our as a sphere. But you also need to rotate pieces in the third dimension of you want to pay the sphere back together.
Generally explosions do in fact involve an object suddenly increasing in volume (with corresponding decrease in density)
Said objects typically become partially gaseous, but if the rest of it is porous then it’s not unusual at all for that to increase in volume also.
Easy example: popcorn.
Neither does popcorn.
Sphere looks like circle. Chop sphere in half, lay flat, looks like two circles. BOOM, Banach-Tarski!
Do you people hate the SAUCE? What sort of savagery is this?
Here: https://ottawa.place/@MichaelPorter/113566528132723718
I mean, its representing a 3 dimensional object, so a lot of those “areas” are actually volumes which can stack “behind” one another
Only if you assume the object was round. I mean it was almost certainly meant to be round, but it could be right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If it was round it wouldn’t have blown up!
Right? Round isn’t what I’d think to call “a funny shape.” Maybe some folks do though.
deleted by creator
Near💀
Blame Banach and Tarski
Clearly the artist believes in the axiom of choice
Sure it does, it’s just not round.
On a similar note, I don’t know which doofus created the cancerogenic warning symbol. It’s so stupid that I didn’t understand it when I first saw it and thought it meant that it irritates breathing or something. Truly stupid.
