/sci/ - Science & Math

Get the fuck out of here, then. People who claim to like physics yet can't do math for shit are the worst. How can you even claim to appreciate physics if you dislike math?

>>5022006
He obviously wasn't talking about himself..

>I love biology but I hate memorizing things

>I love engineering, but I hate butsex

(Calm down, I'm engi myself)

>I really like physics but I hate doing the labs

>>5022017

Lol, the only "labwork" I've done in physics is sent schematics to the machine and programmed data analysis.

I learned to love math by doing physics. Historically, they both developed together - at least the analysis part of mathematics. By learning how the math reflects the physical observation, you will develop the mathematical maturity to study the math on its own. Pro Tip: instead of thinking in terms of the value of the equation, look instead for the relationship between variables and constants: what gets bigger, what gets smaller, how do things change over time. You will learn to read equations like sentences.

>>5022027
*machine shop

>I'm a math major but I don't want 300k/yr starting

>>5022028
Most people feel like that, but I honestly love pure math an sich more than applied physics math (which is obviously also very interesting).

>I want to make gaming my career but I don't know anything about programming

>>5022038
>I want to make gaming my career

>>5021998

So what? At least they have an interest in something good even if they can only understand the concepts not the math behind it all. I'd rather hear someone say that instead of I hate physics and I am not a fan of math.

>>5022042
You can not understand the concepts if you don't understand the math behind it. You can think you can, but you can't.

>>5022042
I heard this from a fellow freshman physics major.

I am a math major going into my senior year and i've never taken a physics course.

>>5022051

Not even in high school

>>5022051
>haha you've never taken a physics course?? LOL do you even know what gravity is?

>>5022055
Does anybody?

>>5022055

Yeah I still consider myself to have a very above average intuitive understanding of physics.. Just don't have the formulas and constants memorized. (except for gravity, 9.81m/s^2 right?)

>>5022036
Never got into pure math, except for a time trying to understand Umbral Calculus and Sterling Numbers, but I did leave Physics to go into Applied Math. My point to OP was, until you reach the level where you understand enough of an application of mathematics to study math on its own, you'll probably not like math. But once you pass that point, the math takes on a beauty of its own irrespective of the underlying reality of what it is trying to model.

>>5022055

I just think of it as more dense objects attract less dense objects. I don't know why, but it seems to make sense, lol.

Isn't there supposed to be an anti-gravity? Didn't we like, not find out what it is yet?

>>5022071
>I just think of it as more dense objects attract less dense objects.

All massive objects attract all other massive objects.

>>5022072

Thanks, tips. But what I said though still isn't incorrect, (unless I should replace dense with massive).. Since the more massive object will "win" the battle. Right?

>>5022076
Wow...

>>5022076

Definitely replace dense with massive. And they both move toward each other, but the more massive object will not move as much because even though the force is the same, the inertia is different.

>>5022065
Once again, my love for mathematics doesn't depend on it's applications (which is pretty counter intuitive for a mechE). I love all math, even if it has no application whatsoever.

>>5022071
>I just think of it as more dense objects attract less dense objects.
Please leave /sci/.

>>5022079

Is it intuitive why objects are attracted to each other? Since the universe is expanding it would seem like things would just be moving apart.

Is ti the mass, and only the mass, that causes the attraction? Does mass have a non-intutivie property that causes attraction?

>>5022091

>Since the universe is expanding it would seem like things would just be moving apart.

Mass warps the geometry of spacetime in such a way that causes massive objects to move toward each other. Gravitation is a much more relevant feature of spacetime than expansion at most scales, but at huge scales you are actually correct. As to why Gravity exists, physics doesn't really care about or even try to answer that question. We just care about how it acts.

>>5022091

Something tells me there's a lot more to it than this picture.

>>5022098

It's not as easy to visualize the effects of massive objects warping spacetime as it is to relate it to that picture alone.

So you'd be correct in thinking that picture doesn't explain everything - it's for laymen. You're slightly above laymen in this case, so it bothers you.

If you don't like math, you don't like physics.

>>5021998
why do people assume that only physics is pure physics ?

you learn a shit load of stuff in earth sciences that is pretty much all physics but you don't have to sit down and random problem sets to use any of the information.

>>5022504
This. Probably most people who say they don't like math don't enjoy the pure math side of it. Also you can not like something and still do it well. Just because they're not a fan of math doesn't mean they can't do it. They just don't like it.

>>5022504
This is a thread making fun of pop science, welcome to /sci/ my friend.

>>5022095
>As to why Gravity exists, physics doesn't really care about or even try to answer that question. We just care about how it acts.

But that's not true! We do want to know why. We want to examine the underlying causes however elusive they might be.

>Yeah, I think I remember hearing that souls were proven by quantum mechanics