/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11867476]

.

[Anonymous No.11867482]

????

[Anonymous No.11867488]

[Anonymous No.11867544]

>>11867476
Yeah let’s forget about rocket propellant and basically every material on your smartphone. They are merely symbolic touchy feely concepts

[Anonymous No.11867557]

Fire
Water
Earth
Air
Consciousness

The periodic table looks much cleaner with the actual five elements instead of garbage like "Ununoctium" which never really existed outside of a few microseconds inside a lab

[Anonymous No.11867576]

>>11867476
>>11867488
>>11867557
We're really giving /x/ a run for their money on most schizo posters per capita.

[Anonymous No.11867601]

>>11867576
I tried to start a legitimate conversation asking why /sci/ has become so anti-intellectual.
The responses ranged from, "no you're the anti-intellectual" to "go back to /x/"

I have to imagine it's either a concerted effort to derail and destroy /sci/, or there's just something about this place that attracts these types of people.

[Anonymous No.11867611]

>>11867476
We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters. -- Pope Francis, Laudatio Si

Sorry physishits and chemcuks, there are only 4 elements.

[Anonymous No.11867631]

>>11867557
Well, I agree with you that the four elements (not five. The ether is not an element. The ether would rather be called, in hermetics, a sphere of cause. Also Kant in his "Opus Postumum" wrote about it) can be thought to be the condition for the possibility of experience. So of course, this only works as long as the elements are not treated intellectually as interactions between objects, but only as their immediate cause (respective to the properties they have, such like hot/dry, cold/wet, etc). Consequently, of course, this does not mean the four elements that we can physically see, such like the phenomena of fire or water. Physical fire is not the same as what is understood by fire in the "classical elements" teachings. The same applies to the other three elements.

[Anonymous No.11867635]

>>11867476
Why do men always make things so complicated?

[Anonymous No.11867681]

>>11867488
Only 25% of JP Morgan's fortune was found to be his, it was uncovered after he died that he was a front for the Rothschilds.

[Anonymous No.11867682]

>>11867631
>>11867557
>>11867601
So, what I am basically saying with this is that the idea of using the four elements synonymously for the periodic table doesn't make sense, since the concept of the four elements isn't even meant to be a physical concept. It's an abstract concept. They are "a priori". The periodic table is good as it is. It provides a solid classification of the physical elements. Fire and Water are the only "true" abstract concepts. Air and Earth are just derivations from the interaction of the elements itself (not with the physical world!). Air as the communicator between Fire and Water. Earth as the interaction between all the other three elements, which results in vibration. Therefore a generic term can only be formed on the term of the "earth" element, because there are different degrees of vibration, and only these allow the different forms of matter, whereas Fire, Water does not allow such, since these concepts have no sort of "degrees" (except in their quantity: hot/dry and cold/wet). One might think that Air is perhaps a generic term. However, this does not work, because Air always creates the same balance between the first two elements. Air is always neutral. Therefore, there are no types of "Air" here either. Only Earth is generic and the closest of the Elements that are "material", but still not measurable.

[Anonymous No.11867721]

>>11867682
Oh, one thing though: The "Four Elements" concept should only be used regulatively, not constitutively. Very important difference. To use a principle (such like "Four Elements") constitutively is to take it to be true of a given domain of objects. To use it regulatively is to assume it hypothetically (without committing oneself to its truth) to derive empirical hypotheses from it.

[Anonymous No.11867759]

>>11867476
I don't get it. We're supposed to find Wojak wrong and annoying, but he is 100% correct. So what gives?

[Anonymous No.11867761]

>>11867476
stop posting this you schizophrenic tranny