/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10561244
>meanwhile dodging the question of
>scientific theories are usually written down with equations that make predictions. where are your equations?
>>10560631
>an equation for the ineffable
>count what has no quantity
This is something a physicist will never understand.

>the fact that you appeal to scientists who lived 200 years ago is pretty ridiculous.
That's exactly what GR and QM does. Not an argument

>are you going to start arguing that Aristotle was right about how the air is what causes inertia?
I would never tell you the cause of inertia because it literally cannot be defined.

>anyhow why don't you elaborate on "the universe is not physical". the opposite of physical is what .... imaginary? a simulation? spiritual? magic?
Holographic.
>i guess your argument is that all of "settled science" is complete bullshit
FTFY

>so why are you positing (wrong) physical theories then
I have done no such thing, there is nothing "physical" about a hologram.

>how about you give us more details on your /x/ tier view about your non-physical idea of the universe
>describe and explain that which is not physical
Well it certainly isn't going to be measurable for starters..

>>10561269
>There’s some faggot in here saying gravity is unexplainable, and currently it’s not fully explained, but gravity waves have been detected.
>we don't know what causes it, but we know what it does.
A live action roleplay of the "blind men and an elephant" parable.

>If you know anything about particle physics, a wave means there’s a particle
Waves of what?

>>10363566
>nice so you admit you're being a child
Never admitted anything. You're the one who equated me to being a child. Can you both read and comprehend what you read before posting again?

>asking why and what causes it ad infinitum
infinity is not an argument. Why does it infinitely regress? If you can't answer then you have nothing left to offer me.

>nope, nice job misusing another word
Go measure it.

>you're the one saying that gravity is not a force nor a cause nor an actual real phenomena that exists
that is a negative statement.

It was never proven to be a real force/ cause or phenomena to begin with so it's not a negative statement. I'm asking for the proof of what causes gravity since so many people seem to believe it is something to be disproved when there's no actual proof of it's existence to begin with.

>in other words, if someone says "god exists" and another person replies "no he doesn't", the burden is proof is on both of them to make the claim.
And if both cannot come up with a conclusion then it becomes unreifiable. First you have the difficulty of defining god, which both cannot do together or on their own.

One will be stuck claiming that he "knows of" that which is all knowing and omnipotent to him. He will also rely on other theurgists,"prophets" and other people like him who knows just as little as he to learn more of that which he is absent of (knowing god, divinity).
The other will be stuck forever looking for the order of the reality he lives in. He will forever be chasing knowledge and observing that he doesn't know (in order to know more, to understand more about the nature of the universe).

Both searching for the same unreifiable thing. That which they are ABSENT OF.

>i'm saying that thinking things need a cause is a fallacy, not that there is no cause
Then you get no effects. No qualities, no attributes, no properties. Cause at the very least must coexist with its effect and if it does then a "how" needs to be explained.

>>10129396
>>10129474
>>10129446

It means absolutely nothing and I have yet to see the source of the "3,6,9" quote. If anything he probably referred to it as some sort of math trick much like the Marko Rodin cultists. Ask them what this means and they'll basically say some bullshit amounting to "math runs the universe","frequency and vibration" and other nonsense that somehow in their minds explains itself away as some kind of magical driver of the universe..somehow.
Big deal. It's a human math trick made by humans for simplifying a language, which is a language that doesn't really mean anything to the universe. "3,6,9" what? Numbers? What does that mean? It's numerology poppycock that's what.

>>10088625
>What is in the area between electrons and the nucleus of atoms?
"Completely and utter nothingness! Or at least 99.whatever percent emptee spece. Totally nothing at all guys!"
Just kidding, it's magneto-dielectricity.

>If there is less there must be something that takes up the rest of the volume. What is it?
Unmanifested.

>I could choose to measure time with the oscillation of a quartz crystal. Why does the crystal oscillate at all?
Non-sequiter, you still are not measuring something. Like you said:
>You can invent a measurement, go ahead, but if what you are measuring doesn't exist then either you'll get a false result (measuring something else) or a zero result.
It oscillates because an atom is a dynamo of EM,

>It's nice of you to try pulling this card after making your claims as well.
Yeah, "space has no properties". How the fuck do I provide empirical evidence if it is not empirical in the first place? This is why the burden of proof lies on you, I'm not the one claiming imaginary things exist.

>We have measured our own star distorting space.
there it is again "distorting space". No it distorts the medium present.
We have LIGO detecting the effects of gravitational waves on space.
>yes we can't explain gravity, but we know that "gravitational waves" exist.
A "wave" is what something does by the way. It's also not a thing with a property, can't wait to hear the reply to that.
>We have measured how time is affected by proximity to gravitational bodies.
>We have measured how our arbitrary notion of magnitude is affected by other arbitrary notions of magnitude.
Yeah and mixing powdered koolaid in water affects the powdered koolaid. This is not news to anyone.


>>10088656

"Something" is not "nothing, last time I checked

>>10088644
>acting like a butthurt child on a science board.
Underage b& pls.