/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10968716
And the fourth time you get a wildly different answer AND derivation.

>>10527613
>appeal to authority implies a person is involved
>the ideas a groupthink makes and enforces has to be an actual "person" in order to attribute a fallacy to it.

Ridiculous. You are not your beliefs.

>>10370031
>free money to those willing or unwilling to work (yes unwilling)
>rebuild every building in america forcing sovereign citizens to destory and rebuild what they have Mao-style
>Remove every method of transportation needed to bring in commerce and goods and trade.

No

>>10290207
Reify it. What is a shadow made of? It is a PRIVATION of light, do you not understand what that means? It is not a quality, it is the absence of quality. What you call "shadow" is the absence of light, you can call it something but that doesn't make it real or a cause to things. A shadow has no properties because when you talk of the properties it has you end up talking about something else...because again it's a privation.

>That shadow is definitely real, even if you were blind.
You could have blind men on every side of an elephant, feeling what it is. One blind man will grab a leg and tell you it's a tree, one will grab it by the trunk or tail and think it's a snake. One would grab the belly and assume that it's another animal of a similar size. However none of them will be able to tell you what it actually is because the method of observing is FLAWED from the beginning. Similar things happen to men of science when trying to figure out what light is to this day.
>>10290756
How do you measure what is not physical? How much mass does it have? How much "mass" does the blue end have as opposed to the red end? How is it different than mass? What is the difference between a 10 watt lightbulb and a 10 watt laser? How does a change in density "travel"? Does a phase change "travel"?


Can anyone here actually differentiate light from illumination?

>>10191182
>you guys, these super cooled electromagnets that we use...how about we make them slightly more cooled and increase the amperage!

>>10191193
Mostly correct. If they were actually interested in science and advancement, they would start by first understanding whether or not their foundations are based on a false premise. Given the fact that absolutely none of these quacks know how light works and that there's no empirical evidence of any "particle", you can safely conclude that they're running based off assumptions and actually have no clue what they're doing nor know what theyr'e actually looking for. I doubt any person working at LHC could actually tell you what the purpose of it is without circular reasoning/ fallacy of reification. "Oh it works because particles work", "the higgs exists and is important because we say it is" type of non arguments.
Now before some retard chimes in saying "no ur wrong" I will add that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so please cough up some empirical evidence of a "particle". So far the closest thing you've come by are "fields" which are not discrete in the slightest.

>>10191836
>lets count more perturbations in a medium and reify them as things that are "discrete"