/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1766075

>>1766080
yes, never-ending ambiguity...

>>1766081
She made that motion in regards to "crossing out" the mass of an atom, since an atom was 99.999...% free space; all the matter in the universe can be compacted into a bowling ball, in her mind. Since your post was about discarding the notion of particles and operating on waves and fields only, it seemed appropriate.

>>1766100
probably because you predictably assume mass to be particle-based in nature?

Are you aware that velocity can cause mass and that velocity is not limited to "particles" alone?

next bump

>the limit we impose on nature through math

Nigga, You stupid. There are no other words.

>>1766181
why not? At what POINT do they become dimensionless or am I just lacking the common sense to recognize all elliptical motions in space as particles?

>>1766186

I don't even know where you are coming from assuming the fundamental idea of "space" is made from something. And who said anything is dimensionless...

You must be one of those arm-chair physicists who think that certain particles have no mass and shit.

You're just misunderstanding terms because you lack the mathematical background to understand it fully. Go study some more and come back later.

Way i see it, we're just categorizing the distinct individual and readily manipulated regions of space-time. So a particle, although perhaps part of a great fabric that is yet to be defined, is still recognized as being independent for all practical intents.

>>1766194
>You must be one of those arm-chair physicists who think that certain particles have no mass and shit.
No, I just think that mass doesn't need a particle. Math provides no presupposition, pretext, presumption or postulates as to how phenomena relates to each other or to (motionless) space, it merely gives us the capacity to model it with what data we've collected.

Furthermore math is not empirical, sooo why are you trying to utilize it for this discussion? That word was not your window of opportunity to make your (?) assertion.

>>1766208
I can agree. I still find the use of the word particle when assumed as recursively synonymous with balls, bullets and pebbles causes people to be mislead and people to mislead other people intentionally or unintentionally.

>>1766227

Math is not empirical....

wow....

You've just made 4,000 years of history LOL

and where are you finding this motionless space?

and most of the time Mathematics models the problem before the problem even arises. That was the case for Newton and for Einstein, not to mention Dirac and Planck. Just look it up. There is no room here for a history lesson, or a Math lesson.

The fact that 100% of Physics is Mathematics based should pretty well show that it's beyond empirical.

>>1766194
And your one of those people who have never studied physics who believes that all particles have mass?

>>1766254
disregarding the rest of your train wreck.
explain why you are in awe about math not being empirical

you have 15 minutes.

>>1766254
If you think that math is empirical, we need not only a history lesson but a math lesson starting from first principles.

>>1766254
>The fact that 100% of Physics is Mathematics based

yeah we just skip the whole scientific method part.

>>1766283
You can't fool us, we know science is full of Satanic lies about Gods creation.

>>1766294
well, lol, there is a reason for everything

balls not touching bump

this is an interesting thread but the absence of more concrete examples threatens to turn it into a mysticism debate

values fratid