/sci/ - Science & Math

Also Force = Mass (P) Rate of Change in Motion

>>10578561
This means that a higher rate of change in motion can "make-up" for a lower mass as far as force is concerned. They are scale variables that are at balance relative to force. So an equal force can be produced by a more massive object with a lower rate of change in motion or a smaller object with a higher rate of change in motion.

This means rate of change in motion and mass are both the same thing with respect to force.

>>10578561
>F = ma
Revolutionary

>>10578569
No!
Force = Mass (P) Rate of Change in Motion.

I *invented* math and I am showing you how to do it the right way.

I will eventually get to all the unsolved shit but I'm starting off with the simple fundamental things.

>>10578586
So... Force equals mass times acceleration?

>>10578596
No...

As far as force is concerned: Mass and acceleration are not different in the sense that they can make up for one another through scalar means.

>>10578574
>Rate of Change in Motion
what do you think acceleration is

>>10578607
That word is unnecessary. It makes no sense to have a separate word for rate of change in motion.

I invented schizophrenia and I will solve all problems related to schizophrenia but for right more I will just answer once.

Does OP have schizophrenia? Yes!

>>10578615
No.

>>10578554
>"I invented math!"
>proceed to explain basic shit using regular math you didn't invent

>>10578761
Prove that I didn't invent it.

>>10578622
No, OP is schizophrenic, so says the inventor of schizophrenia

>>10578613
What did I just read

>>10578763
First prove you're not schizophrenic.

>>10578769
That's not necessary. A schizophrenic could possibly invent math. Math would not have to have been necessarily invented by someone without schizophrenia. Although I am someone without schizophrenia.

>>10578768
Rate of change in motion is a better term than acceleration because acceleration is not necessary and very bad of a term.

>>10578766
No. trolling is against the rules, get out of me thread bro.

>>10578769
First prove that schizophrenia necessarily means that one could not have conceivably invent math. If you can show me the direct causation then I'll explain why I don't have schizophrenia

>>10578768
If you say "acceleration" you clearly don't understand the universe.

>>10578772
Motion is not a necessary term, you can just say "rate of change of position"

Position is not a necessary term, you can just say "distance and direction relative to a reference point".

So we instead of very-not-good word acceleration we can simply say "rate of change in the rate of change of distance and direction relative to a fixed reference point", or just RoCitRoCoDaDRtaFRP

>>10578797
That is an option yes. But Motion is an acceptable word for reasons you don't understand yet.

I really can't imagine the look on all of your faces when you actually realize I was right this whole time.

I just can't even imagine how you'll react when you learn...

>>10578772
>That's not necessary. A schizophrenic could possibly invent math.
A schizophrenic could also have delusions of grandeur. Guess which is more likely.

>No. trolling is against the rules, get out of me thread bro.
Prove I didn't invent schizophrenia or admit that your thread is trolling.

>>10578808
Likely =/= Necessary
Likely =/= 100%
Unlikely =/= 0

>Prove I didn't invent schizophrenia
If you did it wouldn't make a difference because schizophrenia doesn't necessarily prevent me from inventing math. So I don't need to. Also if a mental illness was man-made it probably wouldn't be so reliable or "real" in all conceivable circumstances. Math behaves the same way (you don't know this yet there is no evidence of math failing yet but once civilization gets to that level you'll understand me better!)

>Admit that your legitimate thread is trolling
Why would I lie to strangers on the internet? I won't lie to you and say that I was trolling. Instead I'll tell you the truth and let you know that I invented math.

>>10578808
If you are doubting the ability of someone to be right about something you are doubting your own ability to be right about anything. Lol.

>>10578800
Instead of saying they're unnecessary, why not simply call these terms "Optional Polysyllables in Substitution for Analagous Grammar"
Or, as I like to say, OPiSfAG

>>10578808
For my final point in this proof:
Since the validity of your statement does not equal 100%, you have not proven anything.

>>10578826
Kek

>>10578826
You forgot the a between s and f and I do appreciate your post because you actually spent time thinking of that.

Thanks for putting effort into my thread I appreciate your token of gratitude.

Regardless, why is "acceleration" necessary as well?

Why don't we just conglomerate everything?

Why don't we just say fma instead of f = ma

or why don't we just invent a single word for every relation or equation ever? That way it saves space.

Or as I like to say: "Lol" (That means everything I just said in this entire post).

>>10578829
It is a non-sound argument.

Lol.

Any other invalid arguments?

I thought scientists were supposed to be logical, not irrational jerks...
If only...

>>10578554
ok retard

>>10578874
Literally ANYBODY can do ANYTHING in science if they try hard enough. This is why most scientists are not actually smart at all, they are just OBSESSIVE freaks. Because obsessive, aggressive, and assertive people are the most-likely to try the hardest to beat everybody else. Smart people often don't bother with such a shitty field as science.

>>10578816
>Likely =/= Necessary
How is this relevant?

>If you did it wouldn't make a difference because schizophrenia doesn't necessarily prevent me from inventing math.
Nothing necessarily prevents anything from being true, which is irrelevant to showing that it's actually true. The fact that it's overwhelmingly likely you didn't and that this is simply a delusion is much more relevant.

>Also if a mental illness was man-made it probably wouldn't be so reliable or "real" in all conceivable circumstances.
It's as reliable as mathematics.

>Why would I lie to strangers on the internet?
Why would I?

>>10578825
So you aren't doubting that I'm right about you not inventing math and being schizophrenic?

>>10578836
>>10578841
>>10578845
>>10578851
>>10578865
What the hell is going on with you? Are you okay?

>>10578883
Likely =/= 100%
100% = Proof
Likely =/= Proof

You've got to be kidding me if you are doubting me yet you don't realize that you're "proof" didn't prove anything.

Do you even know what likely means? Something is true or untrue, probability fillings are what's irrelevant. Probability is what is irrelevant here.

Yes.

You seem like a liar, but maybe you are just trying to prove it to yourself? The better question is, why would you try to prove to me that I'm wrong even if I'm right? What do you gain by doing this? If you disagree then please just leave me alone.

>>10578885
>>10578889
I am fine thanks.
The problem is why are you all trying to talk to me like this instead of just leaving me alone?

>>10578829
What did I say that was invalid?

>>10578878
ok retard

>>10578898
You've said plenty of invalid things before.
Your statement is not always valid. Your statement that a schizophrenic could also have delusions of granduer.

Reminder that probability is irrelevant in this problem.

If schizophrenia is true than sure delusions could be true.
If not, then well...

You see the logic?

>>10578904
I think your greatest achievement in life was talking to me twice saying two two-word responses to me.

They could have been better words though, but still you should be honored.

Regardless, I declare that if you say it a third time, you are a poopoo peepee head.

>>10578893
>Likely =/= Proof
And?

>
You've got to be kidding me if you are doubting me yet you don't realize that you're "proof" didn't prove anything.
What proof?

>Probability is what is irrelevant here.
If by "here" you mean "in my fantasy world."

>The better question is, why would you try to prove to me that I'm wrong even if I'm right?
Why would I have to prove that you're wrong when you haven't even tried to prove yourself right? Since you don't seem to mind being schizophrenic, I'll also reveal that I am the true inventor of math and what you claim to be math is not math.

>>10578912
I'm not schizophrenic. I'm not trying to prove anything to you so that was never an invitation for you to try to prove me wrong (which you can't anyways.)

>>10578906
>Your statement that a schizophrenic could also have delusions of granduer.
How is this invalid? It's clearly true that schizophrenics can have delusions of grandeur. As the inventor I can assure you of this.

>Reminder that probability is irrelevant in this problem.
Which problem?

>If schizophrenia is true than sure delusions could be true.
>If not, then well...
I see no relevant conclusion.

>>10578919
>I'm not schizophrenic.
As the inventor I can tell you are. Sorry.

>I'm not trying to prove anything to you so that was never an invitation for you to try to prove me wrong (which you can't anyways.)
You don't need to, we already know you're wrong.

>>10578896
>The problem is why are you all trying to talk to me like this instead of just leaving me alone?
Excluding some of the rude anons in this thread, some of us are talking to you like this to criticize your version mathematics.
For example, you have claimed that acceleration isn't an acceptable term for "rate of change in motion" (ignoring that rate of change in motion is the common definition of acceleration) yet you've never really explained why in detail.
Meanwhile someone has properly pointed out that your choice of motion being an acceptable word for "rate of change in position" to be arbitrary. You also haven't explained why motion is fine.

What is it about this board that attracts these nutters?