/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10707513
>The higgs field. It's the field that interacts with all particles (some more than others), and gives resistance to motion. The more your particles interact with the higgs field, the harder you are to move, the more mass you are said to have.

Fancy description of "inertia"

>Reminder, mass is independent of gravity. That's weight.
>I unfortunately hold no answers to your gravity question.

"Hi I am Mr. ill informed"

>>10707514
>A body of mass inside of this medium is differentiated from the medium because they aren't identical in composition
>"It is different because it is different"
Can anyone here explain rather that restate the premise and describe what occurs? We could have saved about half the posts made in this thread.

>What exactly are you asking me?
To explain the difference between "mass" and "the medium". For the second time now.

>>10503102
>until relatively recently
+2500 years isn't exactly "recent". What is recent is the concept of *multiple souls*.

>>10502628
The only correct answer

>>10502626
I guess you aren't alive

>>10503052
>i just really don’t give a fuck about worthless humans
It would be more proper if instead:
>I just really don't give a fuck about non self-sufficient humans.

>>10503058
When exactly was the "falling point" in that redditor head of yours? Probably when you realized you're here forever.

>>10502964

>do you all realize your “conception” crap is not only scientifically stupid
It was a scientist that discovered this you massive brainlet.

>but also against common sense?
Last time I checked it was "common sense" to take care of your offspring and to leave what is self-sufficient to itself. You are literally saying that it's okay to be more stupid than all the plants and animals in nature. Not an argument, more like a psychopathy.

>women with common sense don’t worry about miscarriages that happen in the first month or two; it’s a different story for miscarriages at 8 months. your sacred book was obviously written by incels
Which has nothing to do with the argument. You're killing the potential for a human which is more or less killing a human.

>but no it's not "killing" because it may have not lived!
>I am a retard who thinks fallacy of reification is justification for killing things.

You're a dumb cunt and you have no at

>>8334534
in essence, yes. The main problem is that "a deterministic universe" is a terribly ill-defined term unlike "a deterministic theory". You can try to reconstruct physical models by adding intricate terms which leave the physics practically invariant (Bohmian mech as I have come to understand it) while doing nothing but make words mean things with no physical benefit.
The other option you have is by setting a definition half the people won't agree with because theory gives us no reason to consider that definition special. The whole conversation always ends the same way ("well according to my definition...") for as long as a 100% consistent theory which NEEDS a clear definition comes along.