/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11727449
>you thought i posted the general relativity link again.
My mistake, I stand corrected and misread this post. You simply posted another link that had nothing to do with what I asked for.

>then acted really smug and thought i misread what you wrote when in fact YOU DID
If I came off as smug then whatever. I genuinely thought you posted the same link twice. Still doesn't matter at the end of the day because both links are not what I asked for so you may in fact still be misreading what I posted.

>this was your first point of failure.
What anime villain are you roleplaying?

>excellent retard smug move dude. plus the fact you think relativity is wrong.
See now you're being the smug retard. I never said that, I said descriptions are correct. They're descriptions after all, how can they be wrong?

>u can find the experiments that show the GPS meme as you call it. basically you are retarded.
>does not show me what I asked for
>links me a wikipedia that lists a bunch of null result experiments
Okay whatever. Have fun pretending to be retarded to dodge questions, or whatever it is that you're doing.

>>11269799
Numbers of what? How many of (thing that is real) are we talking here?

>>11037363
>if you refuse to acknowledge the (hundreds of years old and thousands of times experimentally verified) fact that two charged particles, such as electrons, attract or repulse each other, then there's no point in going any further

There is absolutely no empirical evidence of any particle charge carrying or otherwise so basically this sentence means absolutely nothing from a scientific standpoint. Attract? Repulse? What causes that? From where does the force come from that allows these magical bumping particle to execute such contradiction?

>It literally, in this example it is a charged particle
I thought particles were the excitation of fields (what a field does)? At least that's what some people in this thread have been saying. So which is it? What a field does or the cause of a field to begin with?

>the value of an electric field at a point of space is the force which would be experienced by a particle with a unit and positive charge when placed at that point.

That still does not tell me what a field is.

>>10864837
>>10864844
>>10864850
"It's a trick"
>muh ropes

Have Bleach

>>10833510
You mean his free book?

>>10777201
waves of what?

>>10746841
>Do you mean: What causes the field to take on the values it does? The distribution and motion of charges.

I am going to rephrase this one more time.
What is a field and what causes a field to exist? You have clarified what it does sufficiently enough,.

>>10528042
>>10528049
A humans footprints are not a human, just as a trail of something is not the something itself.
Shadow
Chasing

>neutron trapping exists
I fail to see how it's not "proton making" instead of "neutron trapping"

>"by itself" is nonsense
Then why the fuck are you quacks counting particles?

>because you (not even in principle because of QFT) can(t) have just one particle and nothing else, much less perform a measurement on it when you demand "nothing else" be present
So it's not very fucking "discrete" then now is it? It's mutually impelled by other shit, there's nothing "discrete" or "particular" about what you just said.

>i bet if i showed you the data from a particle detector lighting up after a single neutron in a trap decays into a proton an electron and a neutrino, you'd be like "nooo because it's not by itself, your lab bench is still a meter away, i require it to be done in deep space". (or would that convince you? you tell me) and requiring something to be "not moving" is actually nonsense because of the principle of relativity

I would actually ask what the difference in the neutron and proton is. If a neutron magically turns into a proton after being isolated for 15 minutes or whatever, then what the fuck difference is there? They are literally the same thing, so that negates whatever the fuck you have to say about the neutron (because it's actually now a proton).

>and requiring something to be "not moving" is actually nonsense because of the principle of relativity
Conservation of energy*. The principles of relativity reifies time and space as phenomena that have properties when they in fact do not. They have no properties to be measured yet they are reified as causes/effects that happen so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't mean shit.

>the rest of your arguments are nonsense too.
You just disproved discrete particles and you're not even aware of it. That's how deep the quantum psychosis has affected you.

>>10461947
>Electric currents

Which are made of what?

>>10291099
Time is a measurement you retard.

>>10288263
>What property does you knee have that makes it bend?
The "property" of being made of something that isn't stiff. Made of a "joint" which empirically and demonstrably proves it can "bend". It has the properties of being "bendable"

Now what is "space" made of that allows it to "bend"? "space" as in the "absence of matter", or "space" as in filled space, in either case this "space" has no properties, therefore cannot "bend" because "bending" is a fucking property that something has! How does an absence bend?

>Its absolutely not, science is a tool we use so we can make better predictions for our world. It will never tell you why. Why is a question of philosophy.
Science is a process, not a prediction maker. So I guess this is a philosophical question then. Why does space "bend"?

>I clearly don't, why dont you explain it.
The stuff "in" space has properties to be "bent". differentiate "Space" and "filled space" and you'll see why space has no properties and isn't even a thing.

>>10155460
>Lol, you're so dumb. Don't even know what "dimension" means
Lol, define it. "Dimension" has lots of definitions, one of them being "an aspect or feature". Tell me what aspect or feature time has.

>Assuming a uniform distribution like the retard you are
At least I don't assume that every poster is the same like a paranoid keyboard warrior.

>>10104220
>That is how an analogy works. You draw parallels between two distinct things, and use those parallels to transfer conclusions about one thing to the other.
Non-Sequitur

>No. The sun is a source of heat.
A transformer is not a source of anything, it's a "transformer".

>>9999180
Now replace "psychology" with "physics".