/sci/ - Science & Math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

Lots of papers are cited in the CDC report

>>10346205
All of my posts have contained arguments, all of yours have contained insults

Is space distinguishable? Is there a smallest unit of space? Well let’s test out these theories:

If space is infinitely divisible, then for a given length of space between 2 objects, there are an infinite amount of points between them. That means that each point in between there journey would be occupied on their way there. Any transition between these points would have to be conducted of some unit of time that is greater than zero, as these objects can not be in 2 places at once. But since there are an infinite amount of points, there is an infinite amount of time.

The problem here is this strange assumption of infinity. How can an infinite process end? It can’t, by definition. We have somehow equated infinity as a number, a defined variable. Whatever is multiplied by infinity becomes infinity. There is no larger number than infinity. It is a logically absurd definition. Infinity is a process. It isn’t a number. You could test an infinite amount of numbers against infinity, and none of them would be equal to infinity. If you are eager to be swayed by rhetoric, I can comment on Occam’s Razor; an infinity requires an infinity to explain it. A counter argument to my above argument is that an infinite amount of infinitely small numbers so it cancels out. This is analogous to multiplying by x, then dividing by x. x can be anything you wish, even if it doesn’t make any sense. (5*Toaster)/Toaster = 5. The math checks out, but to step through this as a logical process, trying to resolve 5 multiplied by toaster evades reason. Equations like these are informationally void, and are abstractly accommodatingly, tautological.


To get from point A to B, you have to first get to point C, which is in between them. And then C becomes A, rinse and repeat. This is a paradox. And when there is a paradox it means that one of the premises is incorrect.

So is space finitely divisible? And what does this imply?

>>7733330
>edgy contrarian assertions, more edgy contrarian assertions, more edgy contrarian assertions
Great argument.

And no the taxpayer is getting the burden not the degenerate druggie. Smoking cessation meds are typically covered by low cost or free health insurance like medicare and medicaid in the US.

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(14)00616-3/pdf

>>7105955
ah yes, retard's first retort.. where something's posted.

should we mention that we're posing on a site most frequented by grown men who watch kids for videos and dream of fucking ponies? you're probably one of them too!

>>6596772

Its my own stuff, so I don't need to put it in green.

More importantly, your pathetic resort to insults is no substitute for a substantive counter-argument. Don't have one, do you?

See the pyramid pic of argument levels? You're at the bottom. Try to move up a few levels.