/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11680257
>if time was not a phenomenal reality, then we would plainly not be able to recognize it, and our speaking about it would make no sense.

You can speak of anything imaginary. It's useful as a simplified description, not something that does or causes something to happen. That's all I can say of use. Provide me some proof of time and then I can discuss what it does and how it alters physical reality

>your autism runs deep, and you operate on some semantic memery than runs against conventional philosophical terms AND ordinary vernacular.

>>11680193
>and here's why
Oh wait you forgot that part

>>11680268
No, explain yourself. Why do so many people on this board ask for proof of that which was never proven to exist in the first place? What more can I say other than what has been said? They are completely arbitrary quantification, descriptions of the effects caused by electromagnetism.
They're waves, particles. They're neither waves or particles... Then their speed is constant until it isn't. They're discrete until they "Disappear from reality" completely. These are the many descriptions that have been given regarding "photons", but proof? Can I please have some to base an argument off of? I'm not wasting my time learning how to describe something that doesn't exist,. It's the same as playing dungeons n' dragons at that point only less fun.

>>11267241
>"The more massive an object, the more lensing is observed."

What is the gravity at the center of a large mass?

>Do you agree or disagree that this indicates there is more mass than our current estimates of normal matter?

Do you agree or disagree that there is not one shred of empirical evidence in this article that proves the existence of dark matter? Actually it doesn't matter if you agree or not, because there is still no evidence. By the logic of this article, dark matter is literally no different than "Feng Shui".

>>11036679
So you cannot differentiate it from what it does and you call it a thing?

>>11036987
I think you're confusing scientific models with ontological reality.
And I think you're confusing science with religion. If its not testable then it isn't science. If it's not real then it certainly isn't testable.

>go read up on the various interpretations of QM and go with whatever you like best
Yeah and it all says "here's a quantity" with no explanation as to whether what is being observed is actually a quantity or not. Why would I engage in such an insane prospect?

>>11036225
>Energy is a fluid that has no mass, an equilibrium between radiation and matter.
What is the difference between radiation and matter?

>>11036227
>If our attempts and all of the information on the internet couldn't explain you this pretty simple concept of "here it's 20 degrees, over there 10 degrees, in my anus 37 degrees", then I don't think it makes sense talking to you

Of course it doesn't make sense. You still have not told me what a field is. You just point to a spectrum of whatever property you like and just call it "a field" and expect me to make sense of it. So why do you all waste so much time trying to prove the existence of something you know is not a specific thing? How can the "Higgs Field" even be real when you're basically telling me fields are just a concept to begin with? Were all those conspiracy theorist correct, are you guys just making stuff up as you go along for the research money? What have you actually discovered in your search for that which does not exist?

>A field is abstract. It can describe anything. Temperatures are just an example. The fact that one can describe things independently of whether they exist, doesn't mean that the concept of fields is wrong. A field is similar to a map, except it's in space and time.

Okay. Fields are unicorns. Can I ride the Higgs unicorn sometime?

>>11036528
>Look ma I stuck the word "quantum" in front of another word!

>>10828153
>>10830917
>friends
>mates