/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10748463
>When you ask what it is, what kind of answer are you expecting?
Well I suppose the kind of answer that fucking explains what "the thing" is that you're measuring and claiming exists.

>To most physicists, "what something is" is nothing more than "how it behaves," which is why so many people have answered that way
You're still talking about "something" that is doing the "behaving" though right? You're not just making "the field" up as you go along right? You're making observations and logical conclusions even when the empirical evidence misleads you right? There is still SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS CALLED A "FIELD" no? I can literally feel the effects of such, now that is "something". What is this "field" you all have been describing? You don't mean to tell me that you're just basically making unicorn and fairy stories up right?

>>10749057
>I don't think there is a difference between what an object is and how it behaves in relation to other objects (including itself)
So why are we all sitting here calling it a "force"? If there's no difference between what something is and how it behaves then what is the relationship exactly? How is there a difference between anything at all? What exactly is being "forced" if it's the same shit impelled by itself?