[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.15440430 [View]
File: 132 KB, 501x648, 1674782942721962ddees.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15440430

>> No.15286393 [View]
File: 132 KB, 501x648, 1659829905112977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15286393

>>15286343
>But people already have experimentally verified these things.
No they haven't. There is:
>No proof light travels
>No proof it has a constant speed
>No proof of it being a "particle"
>No proof of a "Wave" being something in and of itself

It's as real as a shadow. One might even say that without shadows you can't even define "light" whatsoever in the first place. An EFFECT. You never even see "light", you see illumination. It not the tungsten wire or glass tube you see when you flick the switch "off", at that point all you're doing is defining the reflections of another light source upon said glass/wire. It's not everything else illuminated when you switch it to the "on position", those chairs were already in the room, non of the objects are the source of the illumination save for a reflection of it. It is a field perturbation of what was already there and present in the room the entire time.

>> No.15156434 [View]
File: 132 KB, 501x648, 1659829905112977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15156434

>>15156247
>Are you claiming the 10^-17 TORR vacuum
>The various disparities in all my measures somehow means there's a "vacuum" there.

Ah yes, and you were there right? In the vacuum right? Negating it being a fucking "vacuum" to perform whatever gay little test you believe proves the concept, right? Wrong.

>Thanks for playing, welcome to flat earth.
Fucked earth. Because people like you are played so easily into believing in things that have no basis in reality.

>>15156338
>Magic container of nothing is real
Laughably absurd. There is no container, because there is no such thing as a vacuum for said container to "contain" (and from what lol?). Were there a container...there still wouldn't be an actual true vacuum because how would a contained lack be defined or define anything else? And if it were a true "vacuum" the container would negate it being a vacuum and there could be no "Container". You would have absence. Not a thing. Vacuum. It's irreconcilable.

>>15156385
We've built rockets that weight exponentially more and they didn't run on Dysons or Kirby's. In fact the principle of how a rocket functions disproves the existence of a vacuum already so idk why this is still a challenging problem to people. High pressure moves to low pressure. By necessity. Where else is it going to go? Into nothing? That's fucking stupid and not how things work here in reality. Even a HVAC mechanic can comprehend these basic facts.

>> No.14758023 [View]
File: 132 KB, 501x648, 1659829905112977.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14758023

>>14757884
>All I'm pointing out is that at least people who study philosophy know where "their" hot takes actually come from.
Which makes them historians. Little accurate describers, not philosophers. Historiographers are more trustworthy because I can get an idea of just how butthurt the historian was at the time of writing his propaganda riddled drivel.

>You are doomed to regurgitate dumb down versions of yesterday's takes.
This happens when a historian relies on their emotions/zeitgeist to describe instead of actually practicing what they preach. As if anything they say is actual new...or that we actually learn from it anyway? No they simply accurately describe so that people in the future can get some bright ideas to try out. Then the Historiographers come along to blow them the fuck out of the water rinse-repeat. It's why I don't read Academic translations of platonic works. None of these academics are platonists. They cannot distinguish the difference between the connotation/denotation of the words being said because they simply just translate the denotation, the primary meaning of the words being spoken.

>>14757971
>The language and symbols of math are also a subset of math and are taught in math curricula by math teachers who are departmentalized as math.
Math was originally the "language of quantification" which is why there was initially no number for "0" (because it's not a fucking quantity). You can call your symbolism/numerology/expression abuse "quantity", that doesn't make it quantified...nor really math.

>but authority said
And this gives them power over me? You're going to need a gun, not a notepad and paper. If it were actually the days of Pythagoras these people would have been drowned decades ago for being unable to explain their shit.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]