/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16069680
>Then explain how you can measure something that is vastly smaller than the smallest component of an instrument such that it would be drastically affected by the measurement itself?
>Measurements can't get infinitely small
Your confusion stems from your lack of understanding what measurement means and your ignorance in thinking that you need a primitive manmade instrument to measure anything, an adequate analogue would be when people think that an "observer" in a system denotes a human being looking at something.
>retarded incoherent questions
It was pretty coherent, you claim reality has a limit and I asked you what that limit is, you dodge the question and spaz out
>I said you can't have an infinite number of steps
Too bad what "you say" has no bearing on how reality functions
>you still think you can have an infinite number of divisions or that something comes after an infinite number of steps.
Except I explicitly stated it's an infinitely recurring system, nothing "comes after an infinite number of steps", it's an endless loop, no beginning, no end

>>15964830
>It's going to keep moving within that inertial frame of reference, dingus.
Objects in an inertial frame of reference are not moving in relation to that frame of reference, dingus, similarly a car moving past you will not magically cause you to gain acceleration, even though you are moving relative to the frame of reference of the car, similarly you will not magically gain acceleration even though you are moving relative to the portal, since there are zero forces acting on you, if you can't understand something as simple as this then I can't help you

>>15104046
u/RickAstleyletmedown has already debunked this https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/103v3qp/comment/j317cjz/

>>15030873
>>15030883
>>15030703
>>15030741
The axiom scheme of replacement expands the definition of a function to that because of the OBVIOUS fucking realization that there are countably infinite rules yet an uncountably infinite amount of functions.
You are fucking retarded. Kill yourself now.

>>15010312
Relativistic corrections are needed
I already know the rest of the line because it's repeated so much like a broken record. See this is the psychosis I'm talking about with acknowledging Einsteins flawed works.
This retard is actually bothering to reply despite knowing full well its a department of defense secret that still has not been released to the public, but because some oddball attention whore physishit wanted some extra cash he decided to have the history/discovery channel film him making up bullshit. It's not related to his work and there is absolutely no proof you are ever going to show for it without outing yourself as a Russian/USA glownigger.
Deal with it.

>>15001870
You're gonna try and you're either gonna fail or end up with no living body to push your till.

>>14957884
And non of what you said tells me what the number "pi" is.

>>14852069
>read western existential garbage
That's not even the stoner rehash version and you're never going to explain coherently why Kant should be read.

>>14765475
>Bad word game
Don't ask for "someone's soul" next time.

>Your entire fucken point rests on semantics
Your poor choice of relying on a religious definition/concept instead of the original.

>You debunked
No. I accurately described you having a poor assumption of a subject based on the questions you're asking about said subject. Questions that basically amount to:
>"Is [Subject] an [Object]?

>Cool no one has a soul now shut up schizo.
Indeed. This is not a denial of the soul.

>Yet the phrase "I have a radio signal" is used so what it will be ? "no one has a radio signal" ?
You still have to tune into it. You don't actually "have it". It's just a figure of speech.

>And beyond debunked schizo
You're asking me to give you a subject, I'm telling you it's not an object to give.

> See you're also assuming with this inquiry that there are in fact now multiple "souls"
>YES.

Exactly. Because like them you're a mundane Lotus eating moron.

>Schizo crap.
So what is the cause of animation? Material itself? What?

>>14757716
>I've had these symptoms ever since I was a child
Join the fucking "I wasn't beaten enough as a kid" club like the rest of them. They only continued after you became an adult because of your weak father.

>my parents tried everything
Except the one thing we all know would have worked

>I think
>I think
Hypochondriac. Know something for a change.