Why are science enthusiasts so fucking cringe?

[Anonymous No.10857557]

The “elegance” of math and physics is something they go on and on about. Anyone that’s ever done actual engineering or science knows this isn’t true at all, most empirical models for things have horribly messy equations and coefficients that make the equation horrible to work with. Fuck anyone that likes science or its supposed “elegance”.

[Anonymous No.10857562]

>>10857557
Elegance is when you "prove" dark matter by having wrong equation and wrong coefficient in it.

[Anonymous No.10857569]

It's sportsball for upper brainlets, just like politics.
T. Am one

[Anonymous No.10857577]

Not a problem of math and physics, but of the engineers who create messy things.

You are blaming the language, instead of blaming the content.

[Anonymous No.10857591]

>>10857557
define "messy"

[Anonymous No.10858009]

>>10857557
>force of gravity
every fucking time

[Anonymous No.10858380]

>>10858009
Like constant acceleration doesn't do any work...

[Anonymous No.10858391]

>>10857577
/thread

[Anonymous No.10858523]

>>10857557
You're right. People who say that this world is elegant have no idea what they're talking about
>Upper cosmic speed limit
>Time dilation
>Fundamental randomness underlying everything in our universe
>Superposition
These are literally brainlet-tier facts everyone has heard, and even they show the opposite. For fucks sake you can't even describe a dampened harmonic oscillator (without small angle SHM crap) analytically in this universe

Elegant my ass

[Anonymous No.10858527]

>>10857557
based

[Anonymous No.10858532]

>>10857577
This.

[Anonymous No.10858539]

>>10858523
>upper cosmic speed limit
Speed is the linearized version of rapidity. Use rapidity and there's no bound.

[Anonymous No.10858575]

>>10857577
Are you implying engineers should just make shit that is mathematically easy to describe rather than create things that are actually useful in the physical world? Cause I'm not sure I understand you

[Professor Fedora No.10859520]

>>10857557
Application versus core theory equations. It's the groundbreaking connections at fundamental levels that are elegant. Application gets messy fast.

[Anonymous No.10859569]

>>10857557
>fuck anyone that likes science
/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10859574]

>>10859569
OP is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.10859594]

>>10859574
OP is a veritable brainlet

[Anonymous No.10859598]

>BRO THIS APPROXIMATION IS SO BEAUTIFUL

[Anonymous No.10859626]

>>10857557
Very cynical attitude. There is beauty in the fact that the universe can largely be described by math, whether it's "simple" or not. I'll grant that it's gay that scientists use the word "elegant" so much to describe that.

[Anonymous No.10859627]

>>10859626
>gay
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10859628]

>>10857577
>>10857591
Actually it's an issue of a conflict between mathematics' philosophical foundations and empirical reality. That's why it's messy.

[Anonymous No.10859636]

>>10859627
fags are bad

[Anonymous No.10859641]

>>10859636
>fag
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10859699]

>>10857557
I doth pity thee, OP.

One needs to be able to think in at least 5D before the grandiose elegance and beauty can be marvelled at.

Catch you at the next MENSA meetup, OP. Oh wait... never mind.

[Anonymous No.10859890]

>>10857557

What's up with the low I.Q engineering undergrads posting their low I.Q garbage lately? Summer's almost over...

[Anonymous No.10859998]

>>10858523
>Superposition, time dilation, and upper cosmic speed limit are not elegant.
Try graduating high school, buddy.

[Anonymous No.10860179]

>>10859998
>relativity
>elegant
lmao what a fag. Tell me more about how simple and intuitive it is to calculate spacetime invariants and how easy working with 4d curvatures is

[Anonymous No.10860184]

>>10857557
If anything, that makes it more elegant. Simple underlying priniciple leading to great complexity in practice. Emergence, fuck yeah.

[Anonymous No.10860187]

>>10859626
>It's elegant that universe can be described by maths
>Except the cases where it can't and you have to use numerical methods

[Anonymous No.10860361]

>>10858575
I'm suggesting they should shut the fuck up about shit they dont understand

[Anonymous No.10860464]

>>10860361
Oh I see so you're another one of those intellectuals who really see the world for what it is, and to whom the grand design is obvious and simple, despite it being impossible to mathematically describe things as simple as friction or drag

[Anonymous No.10860735]

>>10860187
>Except the cases where it can't and you have to use numerical methods
Just because you can't solve it by pen and paper doesnt mean the equations dont describe the universe

[Anonymous No.10861068]

>>10860464
You describe those things very easily, they just play out in complicated manners when employed during complicated situations, which most real world situations are.

[Anonymous No.10861070]

Because they want to be apart of something that's perceived as intellectual in nature, but fundamentally they're too incapable to participate in any meaningful capacity.

[Anonymous No.10862351]

Test

[Anonymous No.10864046]

>>10857557
Peak onions right here. Commonly known as "the most beautiful equation" of mathematics, and going even further to have the significance of a religious and cultural symbol among the "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!" crowd.

[Anonymous No.10864075]

>>10864046
I've seen discussion of this equation online when I was just taking trigonometry course. I assumed that the people talking about it knew some very advanced math, but then a few years later I realized that they had no idea what the fuck it meant and just though "guy on youtube said it's true, that's cool and makes us look intelligent"

[Anonymous No.10864099]

>>10857557
Actual math is generally quite pleasant. The beauty comes from the grand systems that are constructed based purely on some axioms and rigorous logic, though, not because of numbers. But in that respect it's basically just philosophy. Physics and engineering are genuinely ugly as fuck most of the time and are so impossibly hard to describe analytically that most of the time it's easier to do hundreds of experiments and use an empirical model, or the analytical model is generally off by at least a factor of 2 so you have to do experiments anyways to correct the model with empirical coefficients.

[Anonymous No.10864216]

OMG SCIENCE!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10864373]

>>10864216
What percentage of the "I fucking love science" even have a bachelor's degree in a STEM field, or hell, got a grade better than a D in high school physics

[Anonymous No.10864433]

>>10864373
Not sure, but they love pluto

[Anonymous No.10864520]

>>10864433
I fucking love space rock! When I was a kid pluto was still a planet

[Anonymous No.10864566]

>>10864520
> RELIGION IS LGBTIQ-PHOBIC
> RELIGION IMPLIES CREATION
> SCIENCE DISPROVES CREATION
> SCIENCE IS PRO-LGBTIQ
> I'M PRO-LGBTIQ
> I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!

[Anonymous No.10865181]

>>10857591
This is the cornerstone of fluid mechanics, the Navier-Stokes equation

[Anonymous No.10865226]

>>10858575

Engineers more often use semi-empirics, averaging and approximations, while mathematitians and physicians look for general, closed expressions.

Just a simple example: take a bowl of milk. The task is to find the time it takes for milk to spill over given a constant rate of milkflow per second Q and a given amount of bowl volume V.

The scientist's approach is to find a close and simple expression lile t = V/Q, such as given a flow Q of 0.1 L/s and a volume of 1 L, it takes 10 seconds to fill the bowl. Simple and easy.

The engineers approach is different.
What if the shape is such that the flow always spills due to the angle of attack? What if internal turbulences cause it to spill earlier? What if the bowl has internal standing waves whose crests spill over? Sooner than later, you have navier-stoke equations and perform a messy FEM simulation, derive multidimensional graphs and investigate every case the milk spills sooner than you think.

Not the best example but conveys the idea.

[Anonymous No.10865238]

>>10865226
Nah thats a very good way to think about it. Engineers also hold all legal responsibility for the things they design, as almost anything engineered has to be safe for human use.

[Anonymous No.10865239]

>>10864520
Kek

[Anonymous No.10865249]

>>10865181
Is the equation “messy” or is the problem just inherently complicated?

[Anonymous No.10865253]

>>10865249
The problem itself is a messy one. Elegance does not occur often in mid sized problems.

[Anonymous No.10865523]

>>10865181
This looks far more hideous because of that horrible Leibniz notation that brainlet physicists like to use.

[Anonymous No.10865526]

>>10865226
>The engineers approach is different.
>What if the shape is such that the flow always spills due to the angle of attack? What if internal turbulences cause it to spill earlier? What if the bowl has internal standing waves whose crests spill over? Sooner than later, you have navier-stoke equations and perform a messy FEM simulation, derive multidimensional graphs and investigate every case the milk spills sooner than you think.
No engineer would do this. We take 1 class on fluid mechanics and most of it is dedicated to pipe flow. We would just use V = Q*t

[Anonymous No.10865547]

>>10865253
I could consider an equation as elegant if it maps a problem in what seems like the simplest possible way.

[Anonymous No.10866153]

>>10865526
>We would just use V = Q*t
Only if you're an undergrad doing problem set for homework. Let's change the scenario. The problem stays the same, but this time you have half a million dollar worth of catalyst in oil refining chamber. Same analogy with the milk. Would t = V/Q suffice or would your higher up made you model the shear along the refining chambers and pipes?

[Anonymous No.10866423]

>>10857557
"Elegant" in math means you stated or proved something in a simple, "cool" way.
Casually tossing it in there next to physics is dishonest.

[Anonymous No.10866712]

>>10865181
You are delibareatly making look like shit by writing out the full expanded form in spherical coordinates. In cartesian vector tensor notation, it actually looks quite compact.

[Anonymous No.10867736]

>>10865523
>Leibniz notation
>Brainlet
Oh boy I sure enjoy putting dots over functions

[Anonymous No.10867741]

>>10864075
When I started doing complex numbers in highschool whenever this equation came up my teacher would always make effort to emphasise how beautiful this equation was, which led me to think that it was the peak of mathematics as well.

[Anonymous No.10867742]

>>10864046
It's always bugged me that this shit isn't written as [math]e^{iπ}=-1[/math]. I get it you want to use fucking zero and one because they are ~special~. Get over yourselves.

[Anonymous No.10867756]

>>10859520
This

[Anonymous No.10867762]

>>10864046
Next time someone mentions how much they love this fucking equation, ask them some basic calculus, like what the slope of y=x^3 at x=2 is.

[Anonymous No.10867764]

>>10865226
What is the term for the person who gets a bowl and some water and a stopwatch?

[Anonymous No.10867785]

>>10867764
Experimentalists?

[Anonymous No.10868483]

>>10866153
The virgin theorist: Lets calculate this with finite differences over supercomputer

The chad experimentalists: Just see what happens lmao

[Anonymous No.10868825]

>>10857557
If nobody liked science, then you wouldn't have a computer to bitch about science with. In fact we would still be chasing animals with spears. You sound like a crybaby humanities major.

[Anonymous No.10868853]

>>10857557
>>10857562
>>10858523
>>10858527
>>10859598
>>10864046
>>10864216
>>10864373
>>10864520
>>10864566
>samefagging this hard

[Anonymous No.10869002]

>>10864216
>Real Parents who Science

[Anonymous No.10869098]

>>10864046
Yeah, it's basically toted by the same type of people who find complex numbers "mysterious" and "mystic". There's just way cooler shit out there, even if you want to restrict to instances of exp(i ••• ). E.g. harmonic analysis, Stone's theorem for one-parameter unitary groups, half of Lie theory, etc.
Not that I'm enough of an autist to get a shirt with an equation on it, but if I had to, and it had to use exp, I'd rock the double cover of SO(3) by SU(2): [eqn] \mathrm{SO}(3) = e^{i \mathfrak{su}(2)} / \mathbb{Z}_2. [/eqn] Now that's a fun one.