/sci/ - Science & Math

I agree, it's high time we stopped listening to this "science" and started dealing with the problems staring us in the face. The most important of which is atheism. How can we let these godless scum walk the earth as free men, mocking the omnipotent with their squirrely logic?

They only think they think. No total vision, total system, merely schemes with a vague family resemblance, no more identity than bridges, and say, spiderwebs. But they rush across chasms on spiderwebs, and sometimes they make it, and that, they think, is that!

My point is, this November, vote for someone who has your interests in hand, your knowledge in mind, and your values at heart. Vote Dragon 2014

>>6672276
>can't come up with answers
>QUICK! Reductio ad absurdum!
Is this the best you can do?

>>6672282
herbs

>>6672276

Subatomic particles come from sub-subatomic particles.

And sub-subatomic particles are really 1 and 0 bits on a galactic sized computer that fits inside a memory device the size of some alien's thumb.

Taking the bait:
Then how the hell did the "higher power" come into existence? That's a shitlot less likely than a bunch of subatomic particles.

>>6672269
I love these posts because they allow me to post and save bait images.

Einstein's momentum energy equation is your answer.

Matter can exist both in antimatter or normal matter states. There has always been energy, or equal amounts of anti and normal matter.

>>6672269
>what makes a proton and an electron?

Exciting an elementary field built into the structure of the universe.

>Science lacks a lot of answers, why follow it blindly?

Science is not meant to be followed; it is meant to model reality in a reliable way. Hence why it is relativity plastic with the introduction of new information. You cannot, however, discount the opinions of actual experts out of hand simply because there are questions with unknown answers. Admitting the answers are unknown is far better than making something up out of whole cloth.

>>6672341
here is a new one

>>6672378
OP here. It's not about trolling or baiting. I'm really trying to find answers about them.

Subatomic particles, wtf were they in the supercondensed state before the bigbang? Where did they come from? Why did the bigbang happen? And why 13.5billion years ago? Atoms and stuff came much later, so what was in the supercondensed structure? Pure energy or what?

>>6672364
Doesn't answer anything.

bump

>Science lacks a lot of answers, why follow it blindly?
here's your problem you fucking troll
nobody is following science "blindly"
it's prone to error, that's why we keep working on it, we correct ourselves and find the truth deductively by effort
compare this to your "obviously higher power" who only operates through inductive terms

>>6672439
But it lacks the answer to the most fundamental questions a human mind can ponder. It is lackluster at best in this regard. Why can nobody itt admit science doesn't have the answers to why there was a bigbang, and what was in it, and so on? Hasn't that been a main focus of the sciences since its modernization? Answer that and religion would pretty much be a thing of the past.

>>6672403
The energy was in a different field that was favored in that epoch, filling the universe with inflatons, for example. What was before that is unknown and currently unknowable within the structure of modern theory. String theory and its ilk lift the veil a bit, but they are all incomplete and lack supporting experimental evidence.

>>6672460
>science doesn't have the answers to why there was a bigbang, and what was in it, and so on? Hasn't that been a main focus of the sciences since its modernization?

No, that is not its purpose at all. Its purpose is to build the best model of reality possible, largely for use in the creation of technologies. Answering these blue skies questions just happen to lead to significant improvements often enough to warrant the funding given to them.

Now, answering these questions is part of building a better model, but the inability to answer such questions currently is in no way a failure of modern science.

>>6672460
>Why can nobody itt admit science doesn't have the answers to why there was a bigbang, and what was in it, and so on?
actually every scientist admits that, where do you get your info
yeah there was no "before" big bang but what triggered the singularity to undergo change who knows, it might be answerable through unification of quantum and relativity theories but as of yet it is unknown as you say
and religion and science is not comparable in that regard, if big bang isn't a good enough explanation, than Hator giving birth to the universe is also isn't, furthermore with religion no explanation is sought unlike science

>>6672535
So when do you think science will be able to provide an answer, or is it, as you said, an unanswerable thing forever?

>>6672501
Pretty sure undoing religion in the world is a good thing. And holds one of the most prosperous prospects for the world as a whole.

>>6672497
What do you mean? Elaborate please.

>>6672607
>Pretty sure undoing religion in the world is a good thing. And holds one of the most prosperous prospects for the world as a whole.


And science does not care about what is "good." It is a method for producing models of nature [or is those models].

>What do you mean? Elaborate please.
There are fields which exist still which do not have any real excitations outside of insane energy densities like those in the early universe. Those particles decay into the more everyday stuff quite readily. The inflaton field was a poor example as its energy upon decay went into fueling inflation, not into fundamental particles.

>>6672611
I see, so energy fuels the formation of the fundamental particles of matter? Can you give a link or two for this? I want to know how matter came to be.

>>6672630
Look into the Higgs and what it decays into as an example. Or muons, tauons, etc. There are heavy fundamental particles that are not stable in the modern universe, but may have easily been favored in the early universe.

>>6672630
I don't know shit about what the other dude's saying as I don't have a background in physics, but mass and energy are related by the equation
E = mc^2 (ignoring the momentum part of the equation for simplicity)
Where E = energy, m = mass, and c = speed of light.

>>6672307
I'm pretty much gonna go with what he said OP. I personally believe that digital physics is the fundamental nature of our universe.

Although I don't think our universe really has a beginning but I assume that the whole reason we exist is polarity, meaning hot or cold, positive or negative, light or dark, north or south. I know most of those examples are based on our perception but on a quantum level there are absolute polar opposites. Kinda like 1's and 0's on a computer quantum particles have opposite states and depending on the state of which they're all in at one time is what makes the state of the universe. It's just like code in a computer making all coming together through various programs to make it so you see what you see on your monitor right now... except for its extremely, astronomically more complicated.

This may sound dumb but after assuming that polar opposites are the driving force behind everything I came to a conclusion that the reason why we are here is because non existence is non existence. We just have to exist because we're the opposite of that... It sounds dumb and I know but that's the best answer I could come up with for everything.

We're only a couple hundred years into "modern science". We think we know all the answers, but we really only know a fraction of what's going on. A couple centuries is a fraction of the total scientific lifetime.

>>6672269
particles are an illusion
@14:40
http://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=14m40s