/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15190172
>Your replies are dependent on referencing posts
I'm referencing posts about nothing, no ones going to be dependent on this shit.

>Your ad hominem and deflection is disingenuous
I will deflect a misunderstanding so long as it isn't mine and has been laid out and known to the misunderstood. To insult a fool is to praise wisdom.

>Built on nothing
>how?
That's the question I've been asking.

>The hypotenuse is the geometric quantity
You keep using the word "quantity", and yet I see no actual quantity. I see the geometry, but no math. If you're confused, I was talking about >>15187597 this triangle.

>Being defined
It's not defined. Mathematically anyway.

>still indicates it is something
How real is a shadow?

>and apparently something you think you can talk about forever without being dependent on the accurate perspective correcting your misconceptions.
It's called religion.

>Explanations are descriptions of a choice or process.
>A descriptions/explanation generally works by arranging words into sentences that express the idea/process.
Descriptions account for an observation (which can be illusory!). Explanations account for how/why, it elaborates the descriptions and why those descriptions were chosen and how it formed to be described in such a way. One is evidence and retelling and the other is reason and analysis. You can rearrange all the description in the world to make a word salad sentence, but you cannot rearrange an explanation and have it come out with meaning.

>It has proven possible to demonstrate a lot of "impossible things" to be possible.
So prove nothing.

>You are going on about nothing while claiming discussing nothing is impossible and trying to see how many times you can contradict yourself.
I am indeed staying on topic with OP's post, try to read it sometime. Want to help me go for a world record? We can tally each others contradictions and wait for some faggot to describe us as "samefag" and use his description as proof.

>>14498140
>How?
I'm being rhetorical. It wouldn't, just like adding insulation will never make heat violate the laws of thermodynamics.

>Are you denying that CO2 absorbs and emits in the infrared range?
Accurately describing an insulator has nothing to do with the thermostat or the heat source.

>Are you denying that it sends heat back to Earth, which is directly observed?
I'm denying that it somehow raises the heat more than the million degree ball of fire is capable of.

>Please explain, when was the Sun turned off?
Please explain how the insulation will heat my house. Explain how it will on earth if the sun turned off?

>I never said the evaporator does it
Well that's where the frigid air comes from. It's never going below 0, no matter how much irrelevant shit you throw in the fridge.

>A fridge without walls will be warmer than the same fridge with walls
If both are the same model, both condensers will out put the same temperature. The walls maintain said temperature over their volume.

>It's not
Well an insulator is never going to heat or warm more than the sun. Again, because it does nothing. You're equating a vacuum to a cause more or less.

>In your opinion, the fridge doesn't need walls to reach its required temperature.
>It's not my opinion, it's how they actually function. The same parts produce the same temperature of frigid air.

>How are they insulators if they don't do what insulators do?
What does a vacuum (the best insulator) do?

>Your argument
What argument?

>No, it won't. The same refrigerator using the same amount of energy will be warmer without insulation
"What" will be warmer? The absent volume you can't quantify because you removed the fucking walls containing the insulation? The same refrigerator, the actual components responsible for causing the frigid air will produce the same temperature. No matter what. The only thing that changes is the rate of loss of that temperature.

>Not an argument.
I'm not arguing