/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10089146
>You must have some extraordinary evidence to back this up. I'd love to see it.
Well it certainly beats "it's completely empty space" or "a probability cloud that an imaginary particle orbits".

>I must be measuring something. I can get consistent and predictable measurements, so something must be getting measured.
Yeah, an arbitrary non existent thing. Delude yourself enough and it most certainly will be consistent. Let's count how many seconds there are in a minute for instance. 1..2..3...60 seconds..That doesn't mean anything though. The measurements were already placed there by a human, not nature. You are measuring with conceptual goalpost that moves with humanities progress. Meanwhile in reality the sun is acting as an electrical transformer and creating perturbation/ coherency for other matter to form coherency of their own. That's not "time".

>But why would it oscillate as opposed to not oscillating
Because it determines magnetic field strength. No magnetism=no matter.

>Atoms and EM fields, you say, but even then, why are they distorted in the presence of a massive object?
>a massive object
You mean a massive object made of matter?

>Explaining something and knowing it exists are two separate issues.
If you can "explain" something then you inherently "know" what it is. If you can't explain what you see then you have no choice but to describe what you see using a form of languages (such as math). Descriptions are not explanations.

>We may have set them arbitrarily but we aren't changing them arbitrarily during the experiments, and you know this.
I want you to think about this more in depth, particularly the first part.

>>10089526
>he's saying it like an idiot but the point remains. like saying "time is a property/expression of matter and not a dimension"
Time is an imaginary concept, that's as simple as it gets.

>>10089836
>You can only measure things which actually exist numbnuts
Which is what I've said like 20 times now. Learn to read.